Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 March.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (CITY EXTENSION) BILL
By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 March at Seven o'clock.

ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 6 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Security

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Province.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the present security situation in the Province.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since I last answered questions in the House on 30 January, I regret to say that two members of the security forces and four civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Although they continue to bear the brunt of terrorist attacks, the security forces carry out their duties with great courage and dedication. As a result of their efforts during 1985, a total of 522 people were charged with serious offences, including 24 with murder. So far this year 28 people have been charged with serious offences, and 36 weapons, 2,254 rounds of ammunition, and 1,1591b of explosives have been recovered.

Sir John Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I share his admiration for the work of the security forces in the Province. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the security forces are fully prepared for the strike on Monday? Are they prepared to cope with any eventuality? Does my right hon. Friend think that the time has come at least to place the Anglo-Irish agreement in cold storage until such time as——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns security.

Sir John Farr: —a round table conference takes place?

Mr. King: I very much regret any suggestion that there should be a strike on Monday. I know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be anxious to take every step that is necessary for the protection of law and order and of all law-abiding citizens who wish to go about their business. That is a matter for it, and it recognises that very clearly. My hon. Friend raised the subject of law and order. I very much regret that the security forces should be distracted from their important work of fighting terrorism by having to cope with the problems that Monday may bring.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the year or months before the Anglo-Irish settlement was reached the number of soldiers in Northern Ireland was reduced, and that since the Anglo-Irish settlement the number of soldiers in Northern Ireland has increased? Will he speculate on how many more soldiers will need to be committed to Northern Ireland as a result of the Anglo-Irish settlement?

Mr. King: The analogy that my hon. Friend seeks to draw is completely false. The reason for the increase in the force numbers is the increase in terrorism, which bears out clearly the statement that I have repeated at this Box that the agreement threatens only the terrorists. They recognise it, and they are determined to take extra measures in every


way they can to seek to defeat it. They have launched a series of particularly nasty attacks, leading to the destruction of police stations. We have made it absolutely clear that we shall take the necessary measures for their restoration. That has taken extra forces. I hope that every hon. Member will be determined to stand with us and ensure that if those forces are required for the protection of law abiding citizens and for the defeat of terrorism, they will be provided.

Mr. Fatchett: When the Secretary of State next meets leaders of the Unionist parties to discuss security, will he make it clear that the security forces are not helped by the industrial action threatened by the Ulster community? Will he also make the point that when the Unionists refer to themselves as Loyalists, the security forces will have difficulty in understanding, when the Unionist community or their politicians seem to be encouraging every possible effort to defy the constitution and the wishes of Parliament? How can they be constitutionalists when they are prepared to take that type of action?

Mr. King: Those who call, as I do, for all in Northern Ireland to support the security forces recognise the most unsatisfactory paradox of people who demand support for the security forces and then put an additional strain on them. I seriously hope that those who have chosen to embark on that policy will, even at this later hour, think again, because it will be in the interests of nobody in the Province.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government are doing to monitor the growth of Loyalist paramilitary groups? Should he not include that in his general report on security? Will he comment on the fifth arson attack on a Catholic school in Ballymena and say whether the Government are taking action to provide better security than they have in the past?

Mr. King: The information that I have just given about recoveries of arms and prosecutions is not confined to one section of the community, but refers to terrorism from whichever section of the community it may come. I am confident about the determination of the RUC and the security forces to oppose terrorism, from whichever sector it may come.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that security in Northern Ireland has serious implications for the west coast of Scotland, that arms caches have been discovered on several occasions, that the paramilitaries train there and that any upsurge in Protestant-related hostility could have serious repercussions in Scotland?

Mr. King: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point and I understand his concern. I know that he will join me and the Government to ensure that we stand against terrorism and paramilitary activity from whichever quarter it comes.

Mr. Archer: Will the Secretary of State get a message to members of the Workers Committee 1986 to the effect that while we on the Opposition benches are actively on their side in the quest to retain jobs, we would like to believe that they are equally on our side for the same purpose? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the essential distinction that while lawful demonstrations are by definition a matter for the individual, any attempt to coerce or intimidate people to take part will be dealt with quickly and decisively?

Mr. King: Law and order are matters for the police, but I know that there is a clear determination to ensure that law and order are properly observed. Every step that needs to be taken will be taken to try to protect the citizen and to try to defeat the curse of intimidation. I echo the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in respect of the dispute. The only certain outcome is that it will be damaging to jobs in a Province, which desperately needs more jobs.

Secondary Education

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to seek to change the form of secondary education in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): There are no plans to change the form of secondary education in Northern Ireland, but I am always willing to consider on their merits any formal proposals for reorganisation which may be submitted in the best interests of local schools and their pupils.

Mr. Pawsey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first reply from the Dispatch Box. I hope that it will be the first of many.
Will my hon. Friend give details of examination results in the Province, especially those at 0 and A-level, and how they compare with the rest of the United Kingdom? What part does selective education play within the framwork of those results?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. In 1983–84, the last year for which I have figures, the percentage of all school leavers with one or more A-levels was 22·5 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 17·2 per cent. in England and Wales. The percentage of all school leavers with five or more O-levels or grade one CSEs was 8·7 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 10·7 per cent. in England and Wales.

Mr. Archer: May I seize the opportunity from the Opposition Benches to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to wish him well.
Has he had time to become aware of the fact that the heads of schools in the area of the Belfast Education and Library Board have heard from the chief executive that, to reduce the amount spent on paying school cleaners, they must reduce the floor area they are using and lock up some of their classrooms? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the board has voted to suspend those measures for two weeks? Does he appreciate that the anguish is not about the form of the education service, but about its existence?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind personal remarks.
I am aware from the media that this discussion is taking place within the Belfast board. The board has not yet finalised how it should use the resources which have been made available to it. I have had no formal proposals yet from the board.

Terrorism

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has received from the Government of the Republic of Ireland following the


representations which he has made about Ireland acceding to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott: The Irish Minister for Justice signed the European convention on the suppression of terrorism in Strasbourg on 24 February.

Mr. Gow: What valid reason is known to my hon. Friend for the failure of the Irish Government to accede years ago to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism? What further steps are required to be taken by the Irish Government before the accession becomes operative in the Republic? When does my hon. Friend expect the accession to take effect?

Mr. Scott: It is for the Irish Government to say why they did not sign the convention earlier. The Taoiseach has said that he hopes that the necessary legislation will be on the statute book by the end of this year. I think that it is relevant to point out that the United Kingdom took 18 months between signing and acceding to the convention.

Mr. Benyon: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us feel that this is a most satisfactory development of the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that the only people who can suffer from this step by the Irish Government are the men of violence in Ireland.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made to date at the Anglo-Irish conference; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last reported to the House there has been a meeting on legal affairs within the framework of the conference. At the same meeting I discussed security co-operation with Mr. Noonan, the then Minister of Justice. A joint statement was issued after the meeting giving an account of our work. I have placed it in the Library. The meeting was useful and constructive, and I am encouraged by the commitment of both sides to make rapid progress to ensure that cross-border security co-operation is as close and effective as possible.

Mr. Ross: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I acknowledge and welcome the step taken on the security front. I should like to express our continued support for the agreement. I trust that the Government will maintain their firm resolve in these matters. Have we got round to talking within the conference on the subject of the administration of justice, which is covered, I think, by section 7?

Mr. King: I expect that further discussions on that aspect will take place shortly. I appreciate the administrative support that we have. I think that we are starting to make progress. Whatever the reasons for not signing the European convention, many Unionists did not believe in that item when it was included in the communiqué. They thought that the document either would not be signed or, if signed, not for a considerable period. The fact that the Irish Government and the Taoiseach made that announcement when they did is encouraging.

Sir Adam Butler: Are not the Unionists' reactions to the talks at Downing street—they seemed to give some measure of encouragement but have now been translated into even firmer intransigence—likely to alienate the rest of the British people, who give time, energy and a great deal of money to try to help the Province?

Mr. King: I am well known as a strong supporter of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. I fully support the commitment of the whole of the United Kingdom to the defeat of terrorism and the achievement of a more stable, prosperous and happy society in Northern Ireland. The present developments are extremely worrying in the sense that they stir up the sort of comments that my hon. Friend has made. I am anxious to cement the relationship, and at the moment I am worried that some Unionists are working precisely in the opposite direction to their professed ambition.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the agreement is no part of the law of the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: I think that that point is clearly understood. It is an agreement which confers benefits on both communities in Northern Ireland. It is an agreement also to work together with the Government of the Republic for the benefit of the people in the north of Ireland and the people in the whole of Ireland. I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be no progress with the conference without the consent of the majority? Coercion will not be the way to achieve that consent. In those terms, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will pursue the concept of round table talks, because out of those talks could come a new framework for Northern Ireland, which may or may not include the Anglo-Irish at least treaty as it is currently constituted, but may at least, show the way ahead?

Mr. King: I very much agree with the point that my hon. Friend made when opening his question. I think he would agree that coercion can have no part in this, and that is precisely the spirit of seeking a sensible way forward that has motivated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me, and has motivated us in the discussions that we had. I suppose it is that that adds the peculiar sense of disappointment that we have at the subsequent events. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) remarked afterwards at the press conference:
We have got away from deadlock".
That is precisely what we had hoped, and we are very sorry that second thoughts seem to prevail at the moment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: With the dangerous events that are proceeding in the Province, does the Secretary of State not agree that while it is absolutely true that there is no way in which the North could be put into the South against its wishes, it is equally true that the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could be broken by the Unionists? There is a grave danger that this is what might happen in the months ahead.

Mr. King: I obviously respect very much the right hon. Gentleman's great experience and knowledge of this subject. I fear that the threat to the Union could come from those who most claim to espouse it, and at the moment


some of them appear to be embarking on a course which is in direct collision with this "sovereign imperial Parliament".—as they would describe it—of the United Kingdom. It is a serious matter.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who support the Union and support him in his job are very disappointed to see the absence from this home of democracy of all the Unionist leaders, except the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)?

Mr. King: I know the strength of feeling over this matter in Northern Ireland, and I respect that. All of us who are democrats know that it is in this Chamber that those matters should be discussed and argued. A policy of abstention, an unwillingness even to enter into debate and argument, is not a policy of strength—it is a policy of weakness and a policy of disaster.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what indications he has as to the impact of the Anglo-Irish agreement on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and will he make a statement.

Mr. Scott: Our discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference have already set in train a programme of work between the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana. It will, inevitably, take time for the full benefits of this work to show, but I am optimistic that this will enable us progressively to deal more effectively with terrorism. The signature this week by the Government of the Republic of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism also bodes well for future security co-operation.

Mr. Flannery: Is not the virtual abdication of any political responsibility by the two main Unionist leaders bound to create a difficult and delicate security situation on Monday? There is the likelihood that the hard men will take over. May we have an assurance that there will be the widest mobilisation of the security forces to preserve the peace and ensure that those people who want to go to work will get to work without having barricades and thugs all over the place preventing them, as they did on a previous occasion?

Mr. Scott: I deplore the fact that the action on Monday is likely only to divert the resources of the RUC away from its principal task of combating terrorism. It is up to the police to decide how Northern Ireland is policed in the light of the circumstances that are likely to arise on Monday, but I am confident that we can look to them to do their duty.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The agreement is described in The Times today as a constitutional monstrosity. Its consequences are predictable and were predicted from the Conservative Benches, but is it not desirable that nothing should be said, done or not done on Monday that could endanger security or jobs, in particular those at Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Scott: I echo that sentiment, but those who have embarked on that course and who are urging people to take that course will bear the responsibility for whether it puts pressure on the security forces, for whether it puts the life of the elderly or infirm at risk and for any other damage that is done to jobs in Northern Ireland at present or in the future.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the Anglo-Irish agreement's concentration on security undermined by the comment of a Mr. Peter Clark made last night on Border Television during an interview? He is a Downing street adviser and a Conservative candidate in Scotland. He said that one side has to win and he would fancy changing the border by retaking county Donegal—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister dissociate himself from such irresponsible conduct by a Conservative candidate and Downing street adviser?

Mr. Scott: The Anglo-Irish agreement is designed to bring peace and reconciliation to Northern Ireland. That is the Government's intention. We face opposition from the Unionist community at the moment and we are sensitive to that, but we have every intention of making the agreement work.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: In the context of the professed ambitions of the two main Unionist leaders, has my hon. Friend been able to discern whether they are for integration or devolution?

Mr. Scott: It is not for me to say. My hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that within the Unionist family there are divergent opinions on the constitutional way forward. The Government are convinced that the way forward lies with devolution back to the political parties representing both traditions in Northern Ireland so that day-to-day decisions may be taken by locally elected political leaders.

Youth Training Programmes

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people have joined the youth training programme in Northern Ireland in 1985–86 compared with the two previous years.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): To date this year 14,936 young people have joined the youth training scheme in Northern Ireland compared with 12,742 in the previous year and 11,575 in 1983–84.

Mr. Yeo: How many of the trainees on the youth training programme are subsequenty placed in jobs?

Dr. Boyson: I can give the information that my hon. Friend desires. This year, 57 per cent. of those aged between 16 and 17 who have done the one-year course have left to go to jobs. That is 2 per cent. more than last year and 6 per cent. more than two years ago. One can say that the scheme is working.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the Minister had cases brought to his attention where young unemployed people have been unable to avail themselves of youth training because of their inability to acquire the basic necessary kit.

Dr. Boyson: The answer is no.

Job Placements

Mr. Robert B. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many placements have been achieved by Northern Ireland job markets so far in 1985–86 compared with the same period in 1984–85.

Dr. Boyson: By 7 February 1986, job markets in Northern Ireland had placed 27,063 people in employment in the current financial year. This compares with 22,520 during the same period in 1984–85.

Mr. Jones: I take great encouragement from what my hon. Friend has said about the advances over the past 12 months. Is he able to tell the House whether large numbers have moved into self-employment or direct employment, or what trends might be expected?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in placements this year. At the same time, there has been a 13 per cent. increase in vacancies notified. There has been an increase of about 7 per cent. in self-employment over the past three years, raising the total of self-employed from 80,000 to 85,000 in the Province.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way forward for the job market in Northern Ireland is for all firms to continue working as normal? Does he agree that it would be a tragedy and a disgrace if jobs and orders were put at risk by political strikes?

Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If we have a series of political strikes, or any successful political strikes, that could put at risk the delivery of goods to foreign markets, all that we shall be doing is creating unemployment, not only for the present generation, but for those who are now children in school.

Security

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross border security.

Mr. Tom King: Security co-operation on the ground between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda is already good, but I am confident that as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement we shall see an enhancement in the co-ordination of security at all levels. At the next meeting of the conference we shall be considering a progress report from the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda Soichana on the programme of work referred to in article 9(a) of the agreement.

Mr. Dubs: Cross border security appears to have improved since the signing of the agreement, most notably resulting in the two arms finds in the Republic recently. Therefore, is it not surprising that the Unionists, who have been demanding closer co-operation in security matters with the Dublin Government for so many years, appear not to be happy about that aspect of the agreement and are still trying to undermine it?

Mr. King: I have repeated my disappointment too many times from the Dispatch Box. I understand the concern of Unionists about certain aspects of the agreement. They undermine the quality of their opposition by refusing to recognise the merits and benefits that there could be. Any objective observer knows perfectly well that if we are to make an impact on terrorism the problems of the border have to be met. That is not the sole reason for terrorism, but it is one of the resources that the terrorists use and that is where we can get real benefit for every law-abiding person in the Province.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that Monday's madness will not do anything to help cross border

security? Will he make it clear to those who are seen to be setting themselves up as some form of Afrikaaners of Ulster that he and this House will not be bullied into suspending or scrapping the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. King: It is quite clear that if the action on Monday takes place in the form envisaged it will put a great strain on the resources of the security forces. Obviously, in that respect it may put others at risk, particularly if there were to be problems with terrorism. That must be recognised and understood. I do not approach the problems arising from, and the criticism of, the agreement in an atmosphere of hostility towards the Unionists. The atmosphere at 10 Downing street two days ago was entirely constructive in trying to find a way in which we could seek to meet legitimate concerns in a constructive and profitable way. I regret very much that for the moment those approaches appear to have been totally rebuffed.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are Unionists in Northern Ireland who are not in favour of the so-called strike, who are in favour of the Anglo-Irish agreement and who are not prepared to follow in the footsteps of the abominable no-men on Monday? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there is a sizeable section of the population in the north of Ireland which is not Unionist and is firmly in favour of the proposals contained in the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. King: It is true that there is significant support, certainly in the minority community, for the Anglo-Irish agreement. There are many more, I think an increasing number of responsible Unionists who are now beginning to recognise some of the benefits that can flow, not least from the fact that there is a movement of votes from the party which advocates violence to the constitutional nationalist approach. I continue to emphasise that point, and the hon. Gentleman is in a position to know, it better than anybody. That is something of long-lasting benefit to everybody in the Province.

Mr. Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend seen a special supplement in Police Review dated 31 January called
The Grim Statistics—A tribute to the RUC",
which gives details of many cases where members of the IRA have crossed the border and killed members of the RUC? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all border controls will be strengthened, especially in relation to the Monday problem, and will he give them the additional protection that is demanded?

Mr. King: I have not seen that article, but the point arose earlier today about the increase in Army resources, which is precisely to deal with some of the problems of terrorism, not least on the border.

Wages Councils

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many workers under 21 years presently work in industries in Northern Ireland covered by wages councils agreements.

Dr. Boyson: It is estimated that some 6,000 workers in the wages council system in Northern Ireland are under the age of 21 years.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that in our debates on wages council reform Tory Members and Ministers said


that 8,000 jobs would be created over five years from the abolition of protection for those under the age of 21? Is he aware that that works out at 37 jobs a year for the 17 constituencies in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister and his colleagues, who earn up to £40,000 a year, telling 6,000 young workers who earn £30 or £40 a week that they must take wage cuts of £5 or £10 a week, when 125,000 people are unemployed; to create only 37 jobs a year?

Dr. Boyson: I hope that every hon. Member will welcome any extra jobs in Northern Ireland, in whatever constituency they are created. Obviously there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members about wages councils. On 11 February we debated the Wages Bill. We believe that if juvenile wages are too high compared with adult wages there will be juvenile unemployment. Compared with Germany and the rest of Europe, juvenile wages in the United Kingdom are undoubtedly higher, and we have higher juvenile unemployment.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that young people would rather gain work experience at the going rate and get involved in jobs than be unemployed at a theoretical and far too high wage rate?

Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Surveys have shown that 80 per cent. of young people want jobs. Obviously if they are trained in those jobs they can, as full journeymen and adults, earn higher wages. If they do not get a job in the first place, they will be on the dole for years to come.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister aware that since 1979 youth wages throughout the United Kingdom have dropped considerably, and youth unemployment has risen massively? Is he further aware that wages in Northern Ireland are lower than in any other part of the United Kingdom? Is he seriously advocating further cuts in the wages of young workers in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Boyson: We would all welcome a high-wage economy in Northern Ireland by people working, producing the right goods and selling them throughout the world. If one compares juveniles' wages in the United Kingdom with apprentices' wages in West Germany, one sees that in the United Kingdom they are 50 to 60 per cent. of the adult wage, whereas in Germany they are between 15 and 25 per cent., which means that there is less juvenile unemployment there.

Industrial Disputes

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days were lost in Northern Ireland through industrial disputes in 1985; and how this compares with the figures for Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

Dr. Boyson: The Northern Ireland figure is 80 days per 1,000 employees, compared with 110 for Great Britain, excluding the miners' strike. In recent years, figures for the Republic of Ireland have been consistently higher than those for Northern Ireland, and we estimate that that will also be the case for 1985.

Mrs. Bottomley: Cannot that encouraging news about the Province be communicated to potential investors abroad, rather than the damaging headline-grabbing efforts planned for next Monday?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment. Indeed, last month I spoke about the Labour Relations Agency, which reports that all foreign employers in Northern Ireland are satisfied with labour relations and productivity. We shall ensure that that information is spread, as my hon. Friend asks, and we hope that nothing will be done on Monday to undermine that image.

Mr. Bell: Noting the Minister's response to industrial relations in Northern Ireland as foreign firms see them, will he confirm that a recent poll in the Belfast Telegraph showed that the overwhelming majority of people were against violence and the majority revealed their opposition to a strike? Will the Minister tell the House what the impact of Monday's strike is likely to be on job prospects in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Boyson: There is no doubt that if there is a widespread strike on Monday in Northern Ireland that will have serious industrial repercussions in two ways. First, it will affect investment coming into Northern Ireland which we desperately want. Secondly, buyers in other countries will be doubtful of the security of placing orders and whether the deliveries will be made on time. All workers and employers in Northern Ireland should bear that in mind when they make their decisions on Monday.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is it not worrying that the threat of Monday's strike could well damage a successful company such as Shorts which has worldwide and United Kingdom commitments that are important to the future of the Province? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to urge the workers in that great company to continue on what is already a successful path and avoid industrial action on Monday?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and I entirely endorse what he said. The best thing that industrial workers can do on Monday — indeed, the best thing that all workers can do on Monday — is to go to work. That will show that they are concerned about the security of their employment, show the rest of the world that work is continuing in that area and that the Province is reliable, both for investment and for purchasing from.

Terrorism

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the operations of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: The Prevention of Terrorism Act continues to play an important part in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. Detailed statistics on the operation of the Act in Northern Ireland are given in quarterly bulletins published by the Northern Ireland Office. Copies of these are available in the Library.

Mr. Campbell Savours: May I have a straight answer to a question that I have repeatedly asked for the past three months? Is it illegal, under section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, for insurance companies in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom to make payments directly or indirectly to the IRA? Is that illegal?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has asked me this or associated questions on four occasions. If he has a shred of evidence which shows that any illegal act has taken place, he should send that evidence to the police.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Is it not also true that a number of people in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water are alive today who would otherwise be dead if it were not for the Prevention of Terrorism Act? Is it not a disgrace that the Opposition should have consistently voted on three-line Whips against that life-preserving measure?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend echoes a point that I have made several times from the Dispatch Box on both the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. If the Opposition came to office they would find that, within a matter of days, they, like us, would need these powers in the battle against terrorism.

Social Security Bill

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department has assessed the impact on single persons, pensioners and low-income families of the provisions relating to Northern Ireland of the Social Security Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): As it is the Government's intention that the long-established and widely accepted principle of parity with Great Britain should remain the basis for provision of social security in Northern Ireland, it follows that the impact of the proposed reform on single persons, pensioners and low-income families will be generally the same in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain.

Mr. Archer: May I help the hon. Gentleman a little further? Has he seen the calculations by Dr. Eileen Evason, which show that single people in Northern Ireland stand to lose an annual total of £8·9 million, pensioners £11·4 million, low-income families £3·3 million and families as a whole £8·8 million? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered enough deprivation?

Mr. Needham: I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I have seen those figures. I pay tribute to Dr. Eileen Evason for the valuable work that she does in the Province. However, her figures are speculative and mainly based on the likely size of the social fund, and that has as yet not been decided.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when it is proposed to hold a meeting of a sub-group consisting of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland as referred to in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom King: We had a meeting on 13 February with the Attorney-General, at which we discussed extradition, the possible harmonisation of parts of the criminal law, and the search for measures to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.

Mr. Bell: I congratulate the Secretary of State on anticipating the question from Her Majesty's Opposition and so promptly calling a meeting of the sub-group. Was not this meeting a mini Intergovernmental Conference,

which shows that there is a positive attitude to the Anglo-Irish agreement from both the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Will he confirm that progress will continue to be made to improve the confidence of the Nationalist community, in the judiciary and in the administration of the justice which is likely to be one of the litmus tests of the Anglo-Irish agreement? Will he further confirm that these matters will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the full Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference?

Mr. King: One of the matters that was discussed at our meeting concerned improving the arrangements for extradition. Anyone who knows anything about the battle against terrorism knows that it is vital to be able to pursue terrorists wherever they may go. That is one of the obvious benefits which I hope will flow from this agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that the Anglo-Irish agreement stands, regardless of what happens next Monday, and that no amount of violence, intimidation or paramilitary force will change the mind of the large majority of British people who are clearly in favour of the agreement? Is it not the case that if a power-sharing agreement had not been destroyed 12 years ago by the Unionists there would have been no need for such an agreement in the first place?

The Prime Minister: I make it clear that should the strike go ahead on Monday the action will not deflect the Government from their determination to implement the new Anglo-Irish agreement, which has the support of the overwhelming majority of both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When my right hon. Friend reflects upon the largest export order ever obtained by this country, does she also reflect on the vicious personal attacks made upon her when she went to Saudi Arabia and did so much of the work that resulted in that contract?

The Prime Minister: I leave any attacks on me aside—if one puts oneself in the front line in politics, one will get shot at, as we see every Tuesday and Thursday. I congratulate British Aerospace on the excellent order that it has received, and thank Saudi Arabia for the faith that it has placed in our factories, their management and those who work in them.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that Customs and Excise has today raided around 30 premises, one of which is the headquarters of Johnson Matthey Bankers? Is she further aware that there have been some 12 arrests, that Customs and Excise is investigating as much as £7·25 million in gold bullion which, it appears, may have been smuggled into the country, and that the Bank of England


has confirmed that Johnson Matthey Bankers is co-operating with Customs and Excise? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister on 2 August 1985 refused my request to set up a tribunal of inquiry on the very issue of the unsoundness of—[Interruption.] Some £185 million worth of this country's money has been given to Johnson Matthey Bankers. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister refused to conduct a tribunal of inquiry at the Governor of the Bank of England's insistence — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very long question.

Dr. Owen: It is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. But equally, fair shares all round.

Dr. Owen: Since the Governor of the Bank of England has repeatedly said that the banking and gold bullion business of Johnson Matthey Bankers is sound, will the Prime Minister now set up a tribunal of inquiry?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I understand that Customs officers visited a number of premises today, including Johnson Matthey's. They visited those premises this morning in the course of investigating possible VAT irregularities involving gold. Johnson Matthey Bankers issued a press statement. The Customs officers were following the responsibilities laid on them by statute and, of course, such cases are not referred to Ministers.

Dr. Owen: rose——

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the latest lunacy on the part of Derbyshire county council, which has ordered the banning of The Times newspaper from public libraries and educational establishments because of the dispute at Wapping? Is that not the latest example——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mr. Rost: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the Prime Minister would comment on it.

The Prime Minister: The banning of newspapers is small-minded and smacks of censorship.

Mr. Bruce: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday, 27 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruce: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger in my constituency among the 390 employees of British Airways Helicopters, based in my constituency, about the negotiations to sell the company to Coln Valley Investments? Is she further aware that Mr. Martin Meade is the subject of litigation over an alleged offence under section 330 of the Companies Act 1985, involving £18,000 of expenses? Coln Valley Investments last registered its accounts in 1982, when it made a loss of £40,000. Will the Prime Minister intervene and urge British Airways to break off negotiations with this cowboy operator, which has a record of asset-stripping and job destruction?

The Prime Minister: No, I will not intervene. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, he can take it up with British Airways.

Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the deep and deepening anger felt by a great many of us over

the fact that in a part of the United Kingdom an agreement designed to improve the security of the whole of the United Kingdom is being undermined by actions, some of which are not even legal?

The Prime Minister: I have indicated our approach to this strike. I hope that it will not take place, but if it does, and if it takes place in the name of Unionism, it will lead to the erosion of support for the Union in the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it not desirable that this House should have the opportunity, for the first time, to debate the principle under which an external court purports to lay down what legislation may or may not be passed or must be passed by this House?

The Prime Minister: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the decision of the European Court. That was a limited decision about the age at which women may retire from the public service. The decision was made under a law passed by this House and the consequences flow from it.

Sir Peter Emery: Before 7 o'clock, will my right hon. Friend look again at the Order Paper, on which there is an amendment tabled by the Procedure Committee, which is now supported by 150 hon. Members, right hon. Members, ex-Ministers, ex-Whips and even a senior ex-Chief Whip? Perhaps, as a birthday present to me, my right hon. Friend will follow the recommendations of her advisers that this amendment should be the subject of a free vote—really as a free vote—and will ensure that certain unknown influences—perhaps not so unknown—will not drum Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries into the Lobby to vote against it?

The Prime Minister: I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday and congratulate him on his assiduous work. I am sure that, at the end of the debate to which he referred, he will hear most excellent advice from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Given the Prime Minister's support for Victorian values and family life, may I ask why she supports the Sunday trading Bill? Will she give Back-Bench Members a free vote on the matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I support the Sunday trading Bill. I do not believe that the restriction of choice should apply to Sunday trading when it does not apply to so many other things on a Sunday. People must make their own choice.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend join many people in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his efforts to rid the Labour party of the hard Left, but would she remind him——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Miss Maynard: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Maynard: In view of the Government's insistence that the miners should have held a ballot before their recent industrial action, why do the Government not support the Fleet street print workers, who held a ballot and voted 7:1 in favour of industrial action?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the hon. Lady referred to the miners. It is one year ago today since the miners' strike was ended—a strike which the Opposition supported through the bitterest, cold weather. The printers made their own choice on a ballot, and must take the reasonable consequences which flow from the choice which they freely made.

Mr. Hanley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hanley: Yesterday, in another place, it was suggested that drug traffickers should be injected with their own poison and left out in the street to die. Despite what might be the initial attractions of that policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that a better policy would be to fight demand by effective education, to fight supply by international co-operation through intelligence and drug eradication programmes, and to fight the profits of drug trafficking by imposing long prison sentences, equivalent to those for premeditated murder, and by confiscation of the profits of drug traffickers?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must fight drug trafficking through education, Customs, the police and the courts. I am sure that he ardently supports the Bill now before the House to enable us to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking, which I hope will be speedily set on its way so that we may carry it into action.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister said yesterday that she likes an upsurge of patriotism, but she likes it accompanied by action. Is her idea of action or, indeed, patriotism, selling off assets built up by the contributions of the British people? They have put up. Does she believe that they should shut up?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that, by Tuesday, we shall have some idea of the

numbers of people who wish to bid and an idea of the approximate amount. I can say no more until all those bids are in and have been properly and thoroughly discussed.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister reminds us that next Tuesday is the deadline. Does that not stand on their head her claims yesterday and previously that consortia of bids could be built up for an offer for which there is no prospectus, but for which there is a deadline? Does that not make her claims absolute nonsense and show that she was never serious about competitive tendering and bidding in any case?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Those who are interested in making genuine bids—the trade unions could have done the self-same thing—could have obtained the information from the Department of Trade and Industry or British Leyland.

Mr. Kinnock: That is another of Maggie's myths. Does she not know that the total combined assets of British trade unions are less than £500 million, and that it is nonsense to suggest that the trade unions could mount a bid for purchase? I ask her again: when the British people have bought and paid for a high technology company, many parts of which are turning into profit, why does she want to flog it off to foreigners?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman has such faith, he must know that there are many pension funds, with enormous assets belonging to the unions, which could purchase into that company. The right hon. Gentleman wants British Leyland to be a permanent pensioner on the pockets of his constituents. We do not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Freeman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend stick to her plans for public expenditure and not pursue policies such as those of the Opposition, whose plans call for an increase in value added tax of almost 41 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: It would be our purpose to do exactly what my hon. Friend has said. It is no part of our policy to try to take an increasing proportion of people's earnings through income tax. We believe that they work harder so that they have more for their own families, not to pay more to the Government.

Women (Retirement Age)

Mr. John Prescott: (by private notice) asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the ruling yesterday of the European Court of Justice on Britain's compulsory retirement age for women.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We are studying the implications of the judgment of the European Court of Justice yesterday in the Marshall case. The court has decided clearly that a general policy operated by an employer concerning dismissal which involves the dismissal of a woman solely because she had attained or passed the qualifying age for a state pension, where this was different for men and women, constituted discrimination on the ground of sex contrary to a directive accepted by the United Kingdom in 1976. The judgment establishes that that directive can be relied upon by any employee of a state authority.
The Government's Sex Discrimination Bill is being considered today on Second Reading in another place. We will be considering urgently whether any amendments should be made to that Bill to clarify the law and to comply with the directive in the light of this judgment.
I should make it clear that the directive and the judgment have no application to the determination of the qualifying age for state retirement pension purposes as this is expressly excepted by another European directive.

Mr. Prescott: The House will be grateful for the Paymaster General's statement. It has made it clear that he is considering the possibility of using the Sex Discrimination Bill to correct the ruling of the European court. As the ruling applies only to the public sector, will the Paymaster General make it clear that any changes that he has in mind will be equally applicable to the private sector and to public sector industries that are presently being privatised by legislation which is before the House, and that none of those workers is discriminated against by the process of privatisation?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the ruling provides an opportunity to harmonise public sector practice? Mrs. Marshall was forced into early retirement at the age of 60, but apparently that does not apply to other public employees such as judges and the Prime Minister. Does the Paymaster General accept that this is the time for a radical reassessment of the common pension age, as recommended by the Social Services Select Committee, as a contribution to reducing mass unemployment, which has once again been announced to be at a record high level? The House would welcome action in that regard rather than a fiddling of the unemployment figures, which is what the Government spend so much time doing.

Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman says, the judgment has left a little unclear the status of private sector employees. The court has not resolved that matter. We shall have to consider that. The Sex Discrimination Bill may give us an opportunity to do so.
Before the judgment, we believed that we were complying with the directive, which was accepted by the previous Labour Government. They thought that the

legislation that they introduced complied with the directive. We shall have plenty of time to consider these issues as the Bill makes its way through Parliament.
As for public sector practices, employment policies such as this and whether employees will be required to retire remain matters for individual employers. Not all public sector employers have the same practice. My recollection is that not all health authorities have the same practice, and this was a health authority. The ruling makes it clear that any policy of an employer should not discriminate between men and women. If there is a requirement to retire at a set age, it should be the same for both sexes.
I have already said that the judgment has no implications—no direct effect, anyway—for the commencing age for retirement pension. That has been expressly excepted by other directives. It has of course been considered by the Government recently. The House will be aware that we raised the matter in the Green Paper on pensions policy. In the White Paper we stated:
The Government's aim remains that of increased flexibility. We will continue to examine possible ways of moving towards the decade of retirement.
That is a suggestion that there should be more individual choice at what age people, whatever their sex, might retire between the ages of 60 and 70. The practical problems remain unsolved.

Sir Edward Gardner (Fylde): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more and more people in the country are becoming fed up with having critical domestic problems which affect a vast number of people and touch the pocket of every taxpayer decided in the European court? Does he agree that the time has come when the European Convention on Human Rights should be incorporated into domestic law so that these cases can be decided by British judges in British courts?

Mr. Clarke: I know that such feelings are quite strong. I have to point out to my hon. and learned Friend that it was not the European Court of Human Rights but the European Court of Justice which was involved. It arises from European Community commitments accepted by the previous Government who agreed to this directive and legislated, believing that they complied with it.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Paymaster General accept that the judgment of the European court should come as no surprise whatever to those who have paid attention to the recommendations of our own Equal Opportunities Commission? When the Government are considering what to do about this judgment, will the Paymaster General undertake that they will pay particular attention to the 1·7 million working women who do not have an entitlement to pension at 60 because their pension rights depend upon the age of their husbands?

Mr. Clarke: I have said that the judgment did not come as a great surprise to me. Before it got to the court, the British advocate-general, a very distinguished one, had already ruled that this was likely to be the case. This House passed sex discrimination legislation believing that we were complying with the directive. Therefore, I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The questions of retirement policy have been considered by the House and have been put forward for


public debate by the Government in the Green Paper. They are being considered at present in the discussions on the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Remembering that many occupational pension schemes are now moving to an earlier and common retirement date, should we not grasp the opportunity of this judgment by the European court and begin either to move towards a common retirement date, perhaps 62½ moving in half yearly periods upwards and downwards respectively for women and men, or to think in terms of the flexible retirement age to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred, accepting that, if we were to do that, at least for a period, men who retired earlier would probably have to accept a pro rata reduction? Do we not take powers under the Social Security Bill now going through Parliament to move precisely in this directon?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is taking me back into extremely interesting areas which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As I said a moment ago, the Government canvassed in the Green Paper which we produced on pensions policy and social security reform the question whether it might be possible to move over to a more flexible system of retirement based on individual choice. In the response which the Government received, nobody solved the extremely difficult problems and nobody came up with any solution that would demand instant support in the House or anywhere else. In the White Paper the Government have made it clear that we are still reviewing policy in this area.

Mrs. Renée Short: The Select Committee proposed that the Government should move towards a flexible retirement age of 63 for both sexes within a reasonable time. That proposal was also included in the White Paper. Why did not the Minister include that proposal in the Bill which is now in Standing Committee? Would not that have been the easiest way to deal with it?

Mr. Clarke: If I were in the hon. Lady's position, I should probably take this opportunity to raise my views on retirement policy. However, I have to make it clear that the judgment of the European court has no bearing upon the qualifying age for retirement pensions in this country.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that for many people this judgment will be very welcome? Many of us would indeed like our male colleagues to be given the opportunity to be equal with us and to be able to retire earlier. Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that retirement does not necessarily mean a pension? If we are all to have a generous pension for the many years in which we hope to enjoy retirement, we will have to pay a lot more for our pensions.

Mr. Clarke: I, too, welcome this judgment in some ways. The feeling about arbitrary retirement ages is growing, particularly among those in many industries who are approaching retirement age. However, there is, by law, no set retirement age in this country. That matter has to be decided by employers and employees. There is a qualifying age at which somebody is free to retire and obtain a state retirement pension. That is a very difficult

matter which is best discussed in connection with legislation that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Ms. Harriet Harman: What action will the Secretary of State take to make sure that this decision is understood and acted upon by those who are responsible for public sector employees at local level so that the benefits of this decision can be seen and taken up straight away?

Mr. Clarke: I hope that the House will allow me a little more time in which to consider with care all of the detailed implications of the judgment. I expect that most public sector employers will now be reviewing their policies. If their policies lay down a set retirement age that is different, as between men and women, they should anxiously be reviewing those policies as quickly as possible.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend first remind the House of the cost to the Exchequer if there were to be a common retirement age of 60 for both men and women? Secondly, will he tell the House what the saving would be if there were to be a common retirement age of 65?

Mr. Clarke: I am trying to avoid answering questions on social security matters, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend would object to my saying that those who believe that this question will be solved by reducing the state retirement pension age for men from 65 to 60 are ignoring its quite horrendous cost, which would be unacceptable in any foreseeable circumstances.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: In view of the humiliating number of cases that have been taken from this country to the European Court of Justice and the vast number of judgments against this country, is it not time for a complete review of the sex discrimination laws?

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Lady that I hope that the Sex Discrimination Bill will receive its Second Reading today in the House of Lords. My right hon. and noble Friend is to present it there. It gives us the happy opportunity to review all of these questions. The background to this judgment is that in 1976 the previous Labour Government accepted a European directive. The Sex Discrimination Act was passed in either 1975 or 1976 which, it was believed, complied with the directive. We have discovered as a result of the judgment of the European court that we have to review our position.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not this judgment demonstrate in art appalling way the extent of our loss of sovereignty, since this foreign court can implement above our heads a directive which has never been discussed for one minute in the House of Commons and which entirely ignores domestic legislation that we passed to implement it in our own way? Bearing in mind what has happened, will the Minister and his colleagues be very careful indeed about the single European Act which will further erode our right to control the flow of regulations and directives out of the Common Market by majority vote?

Mr. Clarke: I shall look at the parliamentary record to see whether the draft directive of 1975 was considered by this House, and also to see how much debate there was on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and whether my hon.


Friend took part in the debate when we believed that we were complying with this directive. The fact is that another Bill is now starting in another place. Although I would not encourage my hon. Friend to make lengthy speeches on it when the Bill reaches the House of Commons, he will have every opportunity to do so, and we shall be able to consider all those matters then. This directive was accepted by a British Government, and we believed that it had been complied with by the British Parliament now has every opportunity to review it in legislation that is going through the House.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister has been at pains to describe the limitations of the judgment, but does he believe that it is appropriate to make a commitment to a flexible and equal retirement age and not to interpret the judgment in the most restrictive way?

Mr. Clarke: Unlike some other countries, we do not have a retirement age in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Each employer and his employees are free to determine the retirement age of their occupation. The court has ruled that it is sex discrimination to have a different age for men from that of women. This House determines in legislation, which is not my responsibility, at what age men and women qualify for a state retirement pension. Once that age is passed, it is up to them to decide whether they wish to retire and take the pension or to stay in employment. I am told that one in five women between the ages of 60 and 65 are in employment.

Mr. Toby Jessel: How is the judgment likely to affect the decision of one of my constituents, who, in 1972 at the age of 46, claimed to have changed from a man to a woman? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an important and technical matter.

Mr. Jessel: As it was ruled by Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, that no decision need be taken until the age of 60 was attained, and as that is now imminent, why has the European court prolonged the confusion of my constituent? Should not the court have considered that first?

Mr. Clarke: I doubt whether my hon. Friend's constituent had his or her retirement pension in mind as the main consideration when making that unusual decision a few years ago. I am delighted to say that when the time comes to decide whether he or she qualifies for a retirement pension at the age of 60, it will not be my responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. A private notice question is an extension of Question Time.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 MARCH—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Afterwards a debate on a motion to take note of EC documents relating to the European social fund. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 4 MARCH — Until about Seven o'clock, completion of remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Second Reading of the Salmon Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH—There will be a debate on a Government motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community January to June 1985—(Cmnd. 9627).
Afterwards, motion on the annual report from the European Court of Auditors for 1984.
Details of the EC documents relevant to these debates will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 6 MARCH—Opposition Day (9th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Plight of the Elderly".
Motion relating to the Local Government Reorganisation (Compensation) Regulations Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 7 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY IO MARCH—There will be a debate on a motion to take note of the 1986 farm price proposals and the proposed milk outgoers scheme. Details of relevant EC documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Debate on Monday 3 March

EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND

Relevant European Documents


(a) 7711/85
Guidelines for management of European Social Fund 1986–88.


(b) 9901/85
European Social Fund: Accession of Spain and Portugal.


(c) 9854/85
European Social Fund: Report for 1984.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 5—xxx (1984–85) paragraph 7.

(b) HC 21—iii (1985–86) paragraph 1.

(c) HC 21—iv (1985–86) paragraph 2.

Wednesday 5 March

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC


Relevant European Document


(d) 8616/85
Commission opinion on amendments to the EEC Treaty.

COURT OF AUDITORS REPORT


Relevant European Document


(e) OJ C326
The Court of Auditors Report for 1984.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(d) HC 5–xxxi (1984–85) paragraph 1, and HC 264 (1985–86)

(First Special Report: The Single European Act and Parliamentary Scrutiny)

(e) HC 21–ix (1985–86) paragraph 2.

Monday 10 March

CAP PRICE FIXING

Relevant European Documents


(f) 10174/85
Milk production: outgoers scheme.


(g) 8480/85
Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.


(h) 4130/86
Future of Community Agriculture.


(i) 10492/85
Reform of Cereals Regime.


(j) 4150/86
Reform of Beef Regime.


(k) 4075/86
Situation in agricultural markets 1985.


(l) 4963/86
CAP Prices.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(f) HC 21—iii (1985–86) paragraph 2.

(g) HC 5—xxx (1984–85) paragraph 10.

(h) HC 21—ix (1985–86) paragraph 1.

(i) HC 21—vii (1985–86) paragraph 2.

(j) HC 21—x (1985–86) paragraph 3.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Today, another set of increased unemployment figures has been published, and the Government still have not given time for a debate on the record unemployment or on the proposals of the Select Committee on Employment on improvement in provision for the long-term unemployed. Will the right hon. Gentleman set a date for such a debate?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the independent review body, which was established under the new colliery review procedure, recommended in one of its first reports that Bates' colliery in Northumberland should be kept open for at least another two years? The National Coal Board has overruled that decision. In the light of the implications of the NCB's decision on the validity of the review procedure, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the general principles of that review procedure should be a matter for early debate? Will he take account of the fact that Mr. Ian MacGregor has posed a new series of threats to collieries by referring to the fluctuations in oil prices? I suggest that that is also an apposite matter for debate in the near future.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the raids earlier today by the fraud squad, apparently in connection with the bullion transactions of Johnson Matthey, and the large-scale evasion of value added tax? As these are clearly matters of public concern and economic significance, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that we shall have at least a statement from the appropriate Minister and preferably a debate early next week?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter of the fraud squad raids which have been reported today and ascertain whether it is appropriate for a statement to be made. I shall get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that Bates' colliery features in next week's business in an Adjournment debate. I should certainly like to look at the point more widely. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the National Union of Mineworkers has been given leave to take legal action against the NCB. I should want

to satisfy myself of the exact position and ascertain whether the matter is sub judice. We can consider that matter through the usual channels.
As to a debate on the report by the Select Committee, I have said that we should consider this matter through the usual channels, and I re-emphasise that. Through the good offices of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), unemployment will be debated on 7 March.

Sir William Clark: As the London Business School and the CBI have just issued economic forecasts, would it not be a good idea to have a debate soon on the economy generally? This would enable the Government to reaffirm their determination to stick to their economic strategy, which is proving successful, and to confirm that we can look forward to even lower inflation in the months ahead.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's sound proposals. I am certain that any such debate would enable Conservative Members to affirm their full-hearted support for a Government policy which is vindicated by the latest findings of the London Business School and the CBI. However, in a mood of greater realism, I have to observe that we shall soon be within the Budget period, and I think that we shall have plenty of opportunities then to discuss that matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply about having a debate on Bates' colliery on an Adjournment motion is not satisfactory? If the closure is to go ahead and such a breach of faith is to be accepted, this could be applied in many other areas and every other coalfield would be involved. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at this matter so that this breach of faith can be discussed in the House where the promises and pledges which were given are now being broken?

Mr. Biffen: I was giving the House a little more by saying that the matter can be discussed through the usual channels. Perhaps those magic words "usual channels" are unknown to the right hon. Gentleman, although I think that, from his previous incarnation, he must have at least a nodding acquaintance with them. I said, just for the convenience of the House, that the topic will be debated anyway. I agree that an Adjournment debate in no sense measures against the importance of the topic.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as one of Parliament's representatives on the Council of Europe, I support that Council's Court of Human Rights concept but I begin to part company with it when it starts meddling with domestic legislation, as appears to be the case with the European Court of Justice? In view of the real anxieties on both sides of the House about this matter, is it not time that we had a detailed debate on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: This has been the topic of exchanges at this stage of the week in the past. I do not wish to hold out any false hope to my hon. Friend, but I will look at the matter again because my hon. Friend represents a view that is rightly held.

Mr. David Alton: In view of the widespread interest in the House and in the country about the future of historic buildings and the arts in the post-reorganisation of local government, can the Leader of the House state when there will be a debate on our


prayer against Statutory Instrument No. 148, which deals with those matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman say when there will be a debate on the problems of safety at nuclear installations and the siting of nuclear dumps after the announcement of the Nirex sites earlier this week?

Mr. Biffen: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I shall look at the matter through the usual channels. On his second point, I do not think that I can hold out any hope of an early debate on this subject in Government time, although I acknowledge its importance.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the undoubted fulsome co-operation that he has just promised through the usual channels will not carry on for the rest of the day—we have had enough for this time—and that later in the day there will not be full co-operation through the usual channels on the vote we shall have on the procedure motion tonight on a report of the Procedure Committee?

Mr. Biffen: Only somebody afflicted by congenital suspicion would make such a remark.

Mr. Don Dixon: May I press the Leader of the House for a debate on the Select Committee on Employment's report on long-term unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that we will discuss the report in Government time and not on an Adjournment debate or at Question Time? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that 1·4 million people in this country are compulsorily retired because of the Government's policy—some as young as 18 years of age—without any redress from the European court?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He will also appreciate that I cannot go beyond that, but I hope that he will be reasonably reassured.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Opposition have not allocated their time on Thursday to the alliance so that the SDP can discuss its document "Competition and the Consumer"? The reason for that is that the document is designed
to deter companies from entering into mergers for reasons of opportunism or aggrandisement rather than efficiency".
This is drawn from its practical experience of the Liberal party.

Mr. Biffen: That is a neat point. No doubt the Liberal-Social group will have heard what my hon. Friend has said and will take that into account when it plans its use of Opposition days.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Leader of the House recognise the widespread hostility that would be felt by those of us who are opposed to the Shops Bill if in the near future the Government sought to bring it forward, especially in view of the considerable overwork being done by Standing Committees and the inability of the Official Reporters to provide those Committees now sitting on Home Office matters with reports of the proceedings of the Bills in progress?

Mr. Biffen: I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the great skill and hard work that is undertaken

by the Official Reporters. It is perfectly true that at present they have some difficulties—I hope modest in character—which we very much hope can be avoided in future.
As for the introduction of the Shops Bill to the House, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bill has now completed its proceedings in another place and that there are no plans for its Second Reading in this House next week.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the decisions regarding whether and when the man on the deregulated omnibus should have a pension should be taken by a sovereign Government and a sovereign state and not by foreign courts of justice, however pre-eminent they be?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes his point with great skill and directness. None the less, as the law in this country now operates, that decision was taken elsewhere. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said, there may be a case for this matter to be debated in the House.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Further to the matter of Bates' colliery, will the Leader of the House realise that the Government have a special responsibility in that matter in any reflections or discussions that they may have? It was the Government who said that the agreement was sacrosanct. The agreement that it replaced was one where the coal board was judge, jury and executioner. If the coal board is allowed to implement that sacrosanct agreement, we are saying to it that it can be the jury and the executioner. Will he consider that matter because it is of great public importance in relation to the Government's credibility and what they mean by "sacrosanct"?

Mr. Biffen: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a matter of great public interest. That is why I responded in the way that I did to the Leader of the Opposition and said that we would be happy to consider the matter through the usual channels. I am entitled to observe that, as I understand it, the National Union of Mineworkers is taking legal action against the coal board's decision.

Mr. John Ryman: The Leader of the House is either unwilling or unable to understand yesterday's High Court judgment when Mr. Justice Webster, on the application of the National Union of Mineworkers, granted it leave to apply for judicial review and issued an interim injunction. Despite that interim injunction, the National Coal Board at Bates' pit in my constituency, through the management, has flouted that injunction, thereby perhaps making it necessary for Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Archibald, the National Coal Board regional director, to be brought before the court for contempt of court. Will the Leader of the House wipe the supercilious grin from off his face and begin to treat the matter seriously? Over 800 jobs are at stake and the National Coal Board, aided and abetted by the Government, is acting unlawfully, as found by the High Court. Will he make a statement on the Government's view of the matter and accede to the application made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and give Government time to debate the matter next week?

Mr. Biffen: The first rather minor observation I should like to make is that, as I listened against the amplifiers to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he must have been a


contortionist if he could see my face, let alone decide whether it had a smirk on it. As to the point of substance, I cannot comment upon all the matters which may or may not come before the court. I gave a reasonable answer to the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that we should leave it there.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave anxiety expressed by prison officers at Leicester prison, in my constituency, at the discovery that one of the inmates is suffering from an AIDS-related virus and that last night, after a ballot, they decided to take industrial action, which includes leaving the inmate at the magistrates' court tomorrow when they take him there on remand? If that matter is not satisfactorily resolved, may we have a statement about it from the Home Secretary?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly refer that matter, the significance of which I understand, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to its being considered for a statement.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Bearing in mind the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House of Commons that the main reason for saving the Johnson Matthey Bank was to sustain confidence in the bullion market and accepting today's announcement that bullion has been smuggled into this country, sold at below market prices and followed by VAT claims at full market prices, which can hardly sustain confidence in the bullion market, will he arrange for a debate next week on the future of the bullion market combined with a debate on why Johnson Matthey Bank was bailed out and the Government's cover-up?

Mr. Biffen: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I commented upon that topic in response to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman beyond that.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the discourtesy and crude rudeness that the Queen has had to endure in New Zealand and in other parts of the Commonwealth tour, and the consternation that the country feels about that which is related to the dangers presented to her by the inadequate security cover in New Zealand? Will he undertake to bring the matter before the House to see what the Government can do to strengthen the position to prevent future such unpleasantness to that greatly loved lady?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there will be great sympathy throughout the House for the view that my hon. Friend has expressed, but it is possibly more appropriate for the matter to be the subject of an early-day motion than a Government initiative.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House take up the challenge that has been thrown down to him about a debate on the colliery review procedure and Bates' colliery, in particular, in view of the Government's inconsistency and double standards? My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred to the Johnson Matthey matter and the fact that the Government bailed out an uneconomic unit of production—a bank—during the middle of the pit strike, costing taxpayers £100 million. The Government have been engaged in a cover-up. We now know that there has been gold smuggling. The Bates'

colliery miners heard about the Johnson Matthey Bank being bailed out. Why should they and all the victimised miners by the subject of the Government's hypocritical standards when the City of London bankers can do what they like and get away with murder at the taxpayers' expense?

Mr. Biffen: The point was put succinctly, and I thought persuasively, by the Leader of the Opposition. On this occasion I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is doing better than the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. David Wigley: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 500 about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill in which 114 hon. Members from both sides of the House have expressed their anxiety at the way in which the Government, through their consultation paper, are trying to emasculate that Bill and remove clauses relating to caring for the carers?
[That this House expresses concern at the recently published consultation documents relating to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill; would regret any steps that might remove or emasculate vital clauses of this Bill, including those which safeguard the interests of carers, of persons leaving long-stay hospitals or leaving full-time education by providing a coherent personal plan to meet their individual needs; and while accepting the duty to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, declares that it is inconceivable that services to meet the needs of disabled people can be adequately planned if they are not subject to prior assessment; recognises the overwhelming support for these objectives of the Bill amongst disablement organisations; and calls on the Government to allow the Bill to reach the Statute Book without weakening its provisions.]
All the major disablement organisations have expressed similar anxiety. Will the Leader of the House find time next week to discuss with the Departmnts involved with the Bill a reconsideration of the matter to get the legislation on the statute book?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that there is a general convention that my responsibilities do not cover the passage of legislation in Standing Committees. I take note of what he says and I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Instead of discussing the European Court of Auditors and its work on Wednesday, will my right hon. Friend make it possible for us to debate the role of local district auditors and local government abuses so that hon. Members like myself can report on the latest problems in Leicester where a Nelson Mandela park at a cost of £13,000 is being formally opened on 23 March, and there is a public relations unit costing £150,000 and a twinning arrangement with Nicaragua costing £7,000? That money has all been paid by the ratepayers, and to cap it all there is an 80 per cent. rate rise. May we have an opportunity for the district auditor to justify why he has not yet brought in the commissioners?

Mr. Biffen: At the moment we have a broadly satisfactory division of labour. The Government are responsible for finding time for debating the affairs. of the nation, and my hon. Friend, with utmost skill, is


remarkably successful in enabling the House to know about the difficulties of Leicester. As he does very well, I wish him further success with the skill he deploys in bringing the case before the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On the subject of next Wednesday's White Paper debate on the EEC, as it was the Milan summit of 1985 that produced—albeit against the Government's wishes—the new single joint European Act, will the Leader of the House confirm that it will be in order to debate that matter on Wednesday? Has he seen the Vote today which shows that the EEC scrutiny committee is producing a special report upon the joint European Act? Will he do all that he can to ensure that that report is drawn to the attention of hon. Members before the debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Biffen: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is yes. The answer to the second is that I shall look into the matter and be in touch with him.

Mr. Michael Fallon: With regard to the debate on the future of Bates' colliery, is my right hon. Friend aware that no jobs are at stake and that all the workers there have been offered jobs at neighbouring collieries? If we are to have a debate in the House every time that workers in an industry are transferred from one plant or facility to another, we might be very busy.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and lively contribution which would be even more significant if we were debating the subject. He will appreciate that I try to avoid being drawn into the merits or the content of possible debates. However, I shall take note of what he says.

Mr. William O'Brien: Is the Leader of the House aware of the problem that will develop in the areas of the metropolitan county councils, particularly west Yorkshire, following their abolition? Is he aware of the large rate increases which the ratepayers of those areas will face and the reduction in services, particularly in the fire service and public transport? Is he also aware that

further unemployment will be added to the overburdened rate of unemployment in west Yorkshire? Will he allow time for the House to discuss the serious problems which are facing the ratepayers in west Yorkshire because of the abolition of the county council and the fact that we will be faced with massive rate increases just to stand still following the abolition of the county?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's contribution followed what he said a week or two ago. Of course, I will report his views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In view of the unsatisfactory reply which the Prime Minister gave to my earlier question, will the Leader of the House recognise that there is a need for an early debate on the future of British Airways? First, there is a clear suggestion within the work force that privatisation will not now go ahead. What will go ahead is the refutation of the assurances given by Sir John Nott that British Airways will not be broken up. In fact, the management of British Airways is negotiating to sell off British Airways Helicopters in direct contradiction to a categorical assurance given by the chief executive of British Airways less than a month ago. In fact, Colin Bishop of British Midland Airways is known to be looking to buy the highland division of British Airways and also its routes out of Birmingham. In the light of those revelations and the characters of the people British Airways appears to be dealing with, there is an urgent need to debate what is going on in British Airways.

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. It would probably be best if, in the first instance, I referred it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Do the Government propose to bring to the House without delay the writ for the Fulham by-election, or are they too scared?

Mr. Biffen: I promise the hon. Gentleman that the writ will be produced by the normal conventions and with a reasonable expectation of time. We shall see whose knees knock the loudest when we approach polling day.

Johnson Matthey Bankers

Dr. David Owen: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Johnson Matthey Bankers' gold bullion transactions and the refusal of the Prime Minister to establish a public tribunal of inquiry.
The House has been attempting to discuss the problem of Johnson Matthey Bankers since October 1984 and there has never been a specific debate on that issue. It has many ramifications. It involves the Prime Minister because of her refusal to establish a public tribunal of inquiry on 2 August 1985. It involves the Chancellor of the Exchequer because of his repeated assurances over the Governor of the Bank of England's claim that the bullion trading of JMB was sound and, of course, it involves the judgment of the Governor of the Bank of England.
The matter is specific because there is £175 million of public money at risk because of the decision of the Governor of the Bank of England to rescue JMB and because of the Government's acceptance, on a number of occasions, that that money should not only be maintained but increased. It is therefore a matter that will have to come before the House.
It is my submission that it is urgent because today we have seen JMB's headquarters raided by Customs and Excise under a warrant, to look at the transactions in the gold bullion market. We know that around 30 other premises in the country have also been similarly raided to see what has been happening. I understand that there have been 12 arrests, none of them involving personnel of Johnson Matthey Bankers. Customs and Excise believes that about £7·25 million worth of gold bullion may have been smuggled into the country from April last year until 11 days ago.
It goes much wider and deeper than that. There is reason to believe that the smuggling and purchase of gold at a below market price by JMB has been continuing for a considerable time. It is on the issue of the bullion market of JMB that I have been probing the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister for a long time. [Laughter.] The correspondence on this matter is substantial and if any right hon. or hon. Member wishes to see the correspondence I would be happy to show it.
The matter is urgent because not only is £175 million at stake, but the reputation of the City of London, in particular the reputation of the Governor of the Bank of England, is considerably at stake. Solemn assurances were given. The Governor of the Bank of England gave me an assurance on 21 December. He wrote:
Your assertions, and attempts to demonstrate that the bullion operations of JMB are basically unsound, would, I believe, diminish the confidence of its customers and counterparties and their willingness to do business with it, making it more difficult for JMB to trade profitably in the future.
The letter also said:

The advice which you have received is ill-informed and the conclusions you draw ill-founded.
There is no doubt that JMB's bullion market transactions have been operating under a considerable cloud and the concerns that I expressed were both well informed and well founded. I submit that when the reputation of the Governor of the Bank of England, as well as the judgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, is at stake, that is a matter of considerable urgency.
I wrote to the Prime Minister specifically, urgently and privately on 1 August last year to ask her to establish a public tribunal of inquiry. That was not done lightly. It was done in the knowledge that two members of Johnson Matthey Bankers had just been dismissed. It was clear that there was more behind it than the explanation that was given. We have had constant difficulty in getting at what is really happening. The Price Waterhouse report has not been revealed. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has been vigilant on one other aspect, relating to the industrial and marketing context. On the bullion market, we have not had proper bank accounts published by the Bank of England and we have not had the results of the investigations. I submit that it is now time that the issue was discussed in the House as an urgent and specific matter. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will accede to my request for a debate on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
Johnson Matthey Bankers' gold bullion transactions and the need to establish a public tribunal of inquiry.
I have listened with care to what the right hon. Member has said and I in no way underestimate the importance of it. I also listened to the exchanges in the House earlier this afternoon. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

JUSTICE FOR MINEWORKERS

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. Gavin Strang, Miss Joan Maynard, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Eric Heffer and Ms. Jo Richardson, presented a Bill to provide for a review of all cases of miners jailed as a result of the 1984–85 dispute in the mining industry; for the reinstatement of miners sacked for activities arising out of the dispute; for the reimbursement of monies confiscated as a result of fines, sequestration and receivership; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Procedure

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Lord Privy Seal to move the motion, it might be helpful if I remind the House that this is not a general procedure debate but is confined to the subject matter of the reports before us. They concern public Bill procedure, questions lost when the sitting is broken, short speeches and the operation of Standing

That this House takes note of the Second, Third and Fourth Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1984–85 (House of Commons Papers Nos. 49, 396 and 623) and of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 42).

As you have said, Mr. Speaker, we may discuss also the following motions:


No 2.
That Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of bills) be amended, as follows:
Line 8, after 'committee', insert 'or to a special standing committee';
Line 11, after 'Member', insert '(except a motion to commit a bill to a special standing committee, which may be made only by a Minister of the Crown)'.


No. 3,



That Standing Order No. 70 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland) be amended by inserting, after the word 'Committee' in lines 32 and 41, the words '(or a special standing committee)'


No. 4,
That—



(1) A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed shall have power during a period not exceeding 28 days (excluding periods when the House is adjourned for more than two days) from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records, and, for this purpose, to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than three hours each. At not more than three sittings oral evidence may be given and, unless the committee otherwise orders, all such evidence shall be given in public. Oral evidence shall be printed in the Official Report of the committee's debates together with such written evidence as the committee may order to be so printed.



(2)For the sittings referred to in paragraph (1) of this order, and nothwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 64 (Chairmen of standing committees), Mr. Speaker may appoint any Member other than a Minister of the Crown as chairman of a special standing committee.



(3)Except as provided in the foregoing paragraphs, the standings orders relating to standing committees and Standing Orders No. 84 (Withdrawal of documents before select committees), No. 88 (Entry of questions asked), No. 93 (Witnesses and evidence (select committees)) and No. 94 (Publication of evidence (select committees)) shall apply to any special standing committee.



(4)The question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown to extend the period of 28 days mentioned in paragraph (1) of this order may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business and shall be put forthwith.



That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

No. 5,
That—
(1) When a Member is in the course of making a motion or moving an amendment at any stage of proceedings on a bill, a Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the question be now proposed', and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, the question, 'That the question be now proposed' shall be put forthwith.
(2) This order shall apply in committee only when the Chairman of Ways and Means or either Deputy Chairman is in the chair.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
No. 6,
That Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for closure) be amended, as follows:
Line 3, after `debate)', insert 'or for the proposal of the question under Standing Order (Powers of chair to propose question)'.
No. 7,
That Standing Order No. 68 (Procedure in standing committees) be amended, as follows:

Order No. 10. After three hours, I shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the first motion and motions 2 to 12 on the Order Paper. I have selected all the amendments to the motions under consideration, but not the sub-amendments to the amendment to motion 1.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
Line 24, after 'debate)', insert, Standing Order (Powers of chair to propose question)';
Line 27, after 'closure', insert 'or for the proposal of the question'.
No. 8,
That Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of debate) be amended, as follows:
Line 18, leave out paragraph (3).
No. 9,
That Standing Order No. 58 (Third reading) be amended, as follows:
Line 4, leave out paragraph (2).
No. 10,
That—
(1) For the remainder of the present Session Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate on one of the matters specified in paragraph (2) of this Order, he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock on Monday to Thursday sittings, and between half-past eleven o'clock and one o'clock on Friday sittings, to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has


made such an announcement he may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.

(2) This Order shall apply to debates on:
(a) the second reading of public bills;


No. 11,
That Standing Order No. 8 (Questions to Members) be amended, as follows: Line 99, at end, add—



'(9) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which this House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the order paper for that day.'

No. 12,
That Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) be amended as follows:
Line 4, after 'propose', insert 'in an application lasting not more than three minutes'.

This debate takes place as first order of business and is a tribute to the diligence of the Select Committee on Procedure under its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). For a three-hour debate, however, the reports before us represent a formidable agenda. The four reports deal respectively with public Bill procedure, questions lost when a sitting is broken, short speeches, and applications under Standing Order No. 10. It is a programme dominated by the Committee's proposals for the timetabling of Government legislation. Naturally, I shall devote much of my speech to that subject, but I shall deal with the other matters first.

The House will already be familiar with the Procedure Committee's general approach to short speeches. The matter was last debated on 31 October 1984. The House then passed a motion to give Mr. Speaker conditional powers to enforce a 10-minute speech limitation in defined circumstances. Having evaluated the experiment, during which the 10-minute limit was applied on 24 occasions, the Procedure Committee believes that it should continue for this Session.

While I have no great enthusiasm for formal limitation of speeches, I believe that it serves a valuable purpose in enabling more Back-Bench Members to take part in a debate. Nor has the experiment been as damaging to the character of debate as I feared. I shall vote for the experiment to continue for a further Session.

The first report of this Session recommends that an application under Standing Order No. 10 to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, should be limited to three minutes.

I agree with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. Standing Order No. 10 applications now perform a variety of roles. Although it is not the purpose of the procedure, I suspect that the applications are something of a safety valve in their present form, in enabling the registration of political concern speedily, in prime time and where there is no provision for the arguments to be contested. All that could be put at risk if we drift into protracted speeches involving the substance of a matter, rather than its urgency. The change proposed by the Procedure Committee will not end this possible abuse, but it may check it.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Did my right hon. Friend notice the Select Committee's recommendation that the habit which the Chair has adopted, but which is not part of the Standing Order, that an application for

(b) matters selected under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) for consideration on allotted Opposition days; and
(c) motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown.
a private notice question should interdict granting a Standing Order No. 10 application on the same matter, should be abolished because the criteria for the two are not the same? In a sense there is a right of reply to a private notice question, but there is none to an application under Standing Order No. 10. Moreover, an hon. Member can apply for a private notice question and, under the present rule, no hon. Member, except that hon. Member, is interdicted from getting an application under Standing Order No. 10 on the same facts. My right hon. Friend has not told the House his views about that recommendation, which is also germane to applications under Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that that recommendation is before the House this afternoon. I have sympathy with the Procedure Committee's point.
The Committee's third report of last Session dealt with a matter which is of rather more technical interest, about questions down for answer on a day when a sitting is lost because the previous day's sitting has continued. The Committee recommended that they should be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and should appear on the Order Paper for that day. I commend to the House the principle of the Procedure Committee's recommendation. However, it should apply initially to questions for written answer, since they, rather than questions for oral answer, are designed to elicit information rather than trigger political points.
Since I first considered the matter, I have noticed that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has an amendment which deals specifically with that point. I shall be interested to listen to the general mood of the House on the topic, and to react as the House desires.
The most important of the reports covered in today's debate concerns public Bill procedure, and was produced in April last year. It is an extensive and carefully researched investigation into a number of aspects of our procedure in this area. Its conclusions cover a number of points as well as the all-Important topic of timetabling legislation. I shall not detain the House for long, but I shall refer to those other considerations.
The House will see from the Order Paper that we have accepted the Committee's recommendation that there should be permanent provision in Standing Orders for the Special Standing Committee procedure. Similarly, we seek to implement the proposal that there should be a new motion to deal with exceptionally long speeches in Committee or on Report. The motion would be:
That the Question be now proposed".
The Procedure Committee recommended that the "Kangaroo closure" motion provided for in Standing Order No. 31 be repealed, and we have accepted that. The Committee also recommends the repeal of paragraph 2 of Standing Order No. 58. This removes the need for a


blocking motion on Third Reading, and reverts to the former practice of an automatic opportunity, though not the necessity, for the House to debate the Third Reading of a Bill. I commend that.
Finally, I turn to the major recommendation of the Procedure Committee, which concerns the timetabling of legislation. The proposals are radical and have, deservedly, provoked considerable response. I shall first discuss the content of the proposals, and then the separate issue whether they should be accepted on the basis of experimentation.
The Procedure Committee proposes a much more formalised handling of the Committee stage of Government Bills. It suggests the establishment of a Legislative Business Committee made up of 13 senior hon. Members chosen by the Committee of Selection for a Parliament. The Committee would consider every Government Bill to be taken in Standing Committee. Where the Legislative Business Committee thought that a Bill was likely to take more than 25 hours in Standing Committee, it would seek to impose a timetable on that Bill in Standing Committee from the outset. If no informal agreement were reached about time for a Bill's remaining stages, the Legislative Business Committee should prescribe that also. Its recommendations should be implemented without debate, and it would be able to revise its original proposals for a timetabled Bill only if "entirely new factors" came to light. In addition, the Committee recommended that proceedings in Standing Committees should not continue beyond 10 pm.
The Procedure Committee sets out its concern that legislation should be as fully and carefully considered as possible. That is a judgment that I share. I judge that the Committee also believes that the extensive and automatic timetabling that it now proposes would benefit Government Back-Bench Members. There is no doubt that Government Back-Bench Members—I do not speak merely of this Parliament—have become Westminster's silent and unsung heroes.
The Procedure Committee also suggests, more controversially, that time and its use for delay is not a particularly potent factor.

Mr. David Winnick: I recognise that, unfortunately, some of my hon. Friends have put their names to the amendment in favour of the recommendation, but is it not of interest that a good number of hon. Members who support the proposed change are Conservative Members who came to the House in 1979 and 1983, and who are clearly bored to tears in Committee, without playing a role? Do they not recognise that since there will not always be Conservative Governments, they will be pleased when they are in opposition to be able to challenge what will undoubtedly be extremely controversial Labour Bills?

Mr. Biffen: I have a feeling that as the debate proceeds all that I can do is to lose votes for my side. Therefore, I have no intention of being drawn into the sort of value judgments about my hon. Friends' experience or motivation, or how wet they are behind the ears. I am certain that whether they have arrived recently, or are veterans of long standing, they are well able to make their judgments where the interests of the House lie in this matter, taking one Parliament with another.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Biffen: I shall give way shortly. I have set myself the task of making a short speech, because I realise that one of the penalties of a prime time debate is that it is rather shorter than would otherwise be the case, and I shall be serving the House if I allow as many of my hon. Friends as possible to take part in the debate.

Mr. Morrison: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it is important that my right hon. Friend should recall that members of the Procedure Committee represented Members of all ages and experience in the House. The Committee was particularly well representative of hon. Members who had been in the House for a long time.

Mr. Biffen: I do not see why interrupting my speech served the purpose of answering the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). However, that is a hazard that we all entertain from time to time.
I should like to return to the arguments about time not being a particularly potent factor. I do not see how evidence on that can be other than anecdotal, but in my judgment and experience the well-judged use of time can be crucial in political relationships. If I were concerned solely with the volume and dispatch of Government business, I would welcome such pervasive timetabling as is now suggested.
The House will be disposed to assume that the proposed arrangements will be operated in good faith and without an eye to party advantage. That may well be so, but I think I am entitled to observe that the Legislative Business Committee would have a Government majority, and that if the Government did not like any proposed timetable, it could be voted down or amended on the Floor of the House.
On balance, therefore, I think that the Government would be advantaged by the Procedure Committee proposals. All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition, and I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends, in their moments of supreme confidence, should consider, at least theoretically, how these proposals would bear upon the Opposition.
The Westminster political process is oblique and wide-ranging. It is like a seamless robe, which includes Government legislation, and much else. At present, the Opposition have open-ended opportunities for time and debate on legislation. If these are automatically extinguished, the Opposition will be deprived of a pressure point which is often used to secure accommodation from the Government, not merely on legislation, but on other points in the political process.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Opposition and the Government in a way that ignores the fact that sometimes the opposition to the Government comes from their own side. Those who stand to lose most on this issue are Government Back Benchers who want to change what the Government are doing. If the proposal had been in operation at the time, the amendments to the Finance Bill in 1977 in my name, that of Audrey Wise and of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have


been made, because the usual channels would not have existed and we would have been squeezed out of our use of time. Government Back Benchers who try to change the Government's view will lose, not gain, under this proposal.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) makes that point much more powerfully than I intended to make it.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the view of many of our hon. Friends is distorted by the balance of this Parliament? Because the Government have a majority of 150, individual Government Back Benchers do not have the chance directly to influence the Government's legislative programme in quite the same way as they would if the parties were more evenly balanced.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a point which will stand well in his speech, and I do not disagree with him.
I make these points, of a general nature, on why I feel the proposals are unwise. I could detain the House further with some of the detailed arguments concerning the rigidities and difficulties of applying an automatic formula. I suspect that Bills which now generate little time or controversy would tend to acquire the characteristics needed for a timetable. I suspect there would be great difficulties for the Legislative Business Committee in predicting successfully which Bills had the potential for 25 hours Committee stage.
Then there is the question of the Finance Bill. The provisional collection of taxes already imposes an effective constraint on the time a Finance Bill can remain in Standing Committee. As the Finance Bill is not open to further consideration in the House of Lords, any clause or amendment cut out or restricted by the Procedure Committee timetable in Standing Committee has no further chance of consideration except in the relatively brief debate on Report.
I should mention also the rigidity which that would give to our relationship with the other place in the passage of legislation. I am sure that the Legislative Business Committee would seek to take account of the need for Bills to reach the other place in time to receive proper consideration there, but I am bound to say that I think the proposals would upset the flexibility which we now seek to maintain in arranging a balanced programme, particularly in the closing weeks before the summer recess.
These, however, are modest points compared with the fundamental character of these proposals. That character is that there is a somewhat one-sided trade-off to the advantage of the Government, and, supposedly, their supporters. First, Government Back Benchers are now to have the prospect of being able to talk in Standing Committee. However, without the weapon of time—the hon. Member for Perry Barr made this point—any posse of Back-Bench rebels will be treated with appropriate courtesy by the Whip. Much more tangibly, the Government will have all the advantages of an automatically timetabled programme. Is that the precondition for ministerial behaviour more responsive to the representations of Opposition or other dissenting groups? The very circumstances and the question convey the answer.
I say to the House that I cannot commend automatic timetabling. I respect the work of the Procedure Committee and its genuine commitment to parliamentary reform. My reaction, however, will not surprise the Procedure Committee in the light of the evidence that I gave it.
I should now like to turn to the parallel but separate issue of whether these automatic timetabling reforms should be proceeded upon for an experimental period.
The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggests merely an experiment next Session. If the system is found to be unsatisfactory, he would doubtless say that it should be proved to be so and we should revert to the present arrangements, or make the changes that are found to be necessary. Since I have a measured and fundamental objection to automatic time-tabling, I urge hon. Members not to pursue that approach.
Furthermore, there are particular problems of timing. We cannot be sure what the experiment's effect would be, but we can be sure that it would disturb the traditional way in which the Government and the Opposition have carried out their respective roles. The Procedure Committee recognised that its proposals would mean that new conventions would be developed. There was no suggestion that they would develop within a year. In the meantime, in a Session leading up to a general election, it would be harder for all to assess how well and effectively each party in this place was fulfilling its role of putting forward or opposing legislation. The election should be fought on the basis of what the Government have done, and that can be seen clearly only in the familiar context of the way in which business is currently conducted.
I have spoken at some length about automatic timetabling. I very much hope that this aspect of the Procedure Committee's work will be rejected. say, however, to those who will be voting this evening, that the cause of reform is not solely invested in plans for automatic timetabling. I have sensed general dissatisfaction with the almost mechanical way something like 100 hours in Standing Committee has to be "clocked" before a timetable is secured. That provides for turgid pre-timetable debate and an ill-balanced consideration of the Bill subsequently. There is no reason why this situation should persist. Formerly, and in the early post-war years, timetables have been secured at an earlier time. These are all matters well within the evolution of parliamentary practice where broad understanding and mutual respect exists between the Government and the Opposition.
The Procedure Committee identified the problem as lying with a "small minority" of Bills which give rise to major controversy. The solution it identified, however, would affect all Government Bills taken in Standing Committee and impose timetables on all those thought likely to take more than 25 hours there—this seems an over-reaction.
I believe that the House would be well advised to seek reform of the current practices of timetabling by using the flexibility of our present procedures rather than by recourse to automatic and widespread means of regulating debate.
Above all, it cannot be in the interests of the House to undergo such a profound procedural change which appears to sustain and enhance the ability of the Government to increase the volume and speed of legislation. The genius of this Westminster Parliament is the balance that we strike between law making and the general political debate. The


argument for the maintenance of that present balance is not blind conservatism —it is a recognition of legitimate interest of Opposition as well as ministerial law makers.

Mr. Peter Shore: Procedural questions are, as the Leader of the House said, of immense importance, because procedure governs the conduct of our affairs and sets the rules by which we all abide. The right hon. Gentleman has made a far-sighted and a generous speech, on which I congratulate him.
We have before us four reports, three from the last Session and one from this and, in response to them, no fewer than 12 motions on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I shall try to be brief, and I intend to say something first about what I believe to be more generally accepted recommendations, and then to confront, as the right hon. Gentleman did, more contentious questions concerning timetabling of Government Bills, which is the subject of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir. P. Emery), who is Chairman of the Procedure Committee. That amendment is supported by many other hon. Members.
I start with a warm welcome for the first report, on the operation of Standing Order No.10. The opening up of the possibilities of debate on a
specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration
is one of the monuments to the work of Richard Crossman as Leader of the House 20 years ago. It is an immensely important facility for Back Benchers and, on occasions, it has been used by the Opposition Front Bench as well. It makes the House much more responsive than it would otherwise be to very important events, when the business managers either have not anticipated them, or when they concern matters that the business managers would prefer to play down or ignore.
Requests for debates are not always granted, but to be able to ask for one under Standing Order No. 10 in prime time on the Floor of the House is a welcome, important and valuable opportunity for Back Bench Members. Given all that, we should not cavil at the Committee's recommendations that such speeches should be limited to three minutes. That is long enough for the essential points to be made and I assume, Mr. Speaker, that your response to a wider request under Standing Order No. 10 is considered to be injury time and does not count within the three minutes limit.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: We are debating "take note" on the first report. What are the right hon. Gentleman's views of paragraph 6, in which the Select Committee recommends that an application for a private notice question should not debar an application under Standing Order No. 10 on the same subject by the same Member?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman made the same point to the Leader of the House and I shall reply as he did. This matter is not before us at the moment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is.

Mr. Shore: I am speaking about the precise recommendations of the report.
Next is the Select Committee's third report dealing with the treatment of questions lost when a sitting is broken. The Committee's proposal that they should be answered as written questions the following day is entirely sensible. Why the Leader of the House wants to limit this automatic transfer to the following day to written and not oral questions I do not understand. He claimed to find a distinction of purpose between the oral and written question, but there is no clear-cut division between them. Nevertheless it is small stuff and I shall not press it hard.
The Select Committee's fourth report dealt with short speeches and proposed that the experiment begun in the 1984–85 Session whereby you, Mr. Speaker, were empowered to curtail the length of speeches to 10 minutes between certain hours when the House is sitting, should be extended to a further Session. We are a bit late in starting, but I accept the proposal made by the Leader of the House that the 10-minute limitation should operate for the remainder of this Session.
There is then the substantial and very important report of the Select Committee on public Bill procedure. Like the Leader of the House I pay my respects to those who took part in it. It is a serious report which deserves serious consideration. I shall dispose quickly of the recommendations with which I agree before moving on to those from which I dissent. I agree that the Chair, in the face of exceptionally long speeches, should have the power to propose a question during the consideration of the Bill.
I welcome the permanent provision for Special Standing Committees. A Special Standing Committee, combining the Select Committee and Standing Committee procedures, is a valuable innovation, but I hope that it will be used more frequently in the future than it has been in the past few years. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is proposing to restrict the right to propose such procedure to Ministers. The Government have been rather halfhearted about Special Standing Committees. I would like them to be used more frequently, and, if the Opposition and Back Benchers had the same right as Ministers to propose such a procedure, I am sure that their use would be considerably increased.
The central issue raised in today's debate is whether we should accept a profound change in the present rules that govern Bills, and subject, as the Select Committee proposes, all controversial Bills that are likely to take more than 25 hours in Committee to a guillotine from the moment that they have received Second Reading approval. There seem to be only two serious arguments advanced in favour of the change. The first is that it will ensure a more even consideration of all parts of the Bill than is sometimes achieved under present procedures, and the second is that it will spare Members serving on Standing Committees the long hours and tedium of prolonged debate. I do not dismiss these arguments, but they have to be set against each other and against weightier considerations and arguments.
First, the proposals would tilt the balance substantially in favour of the Government of the day. Hon. Members would do well to remind themselves, as the Leader of the House and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did in their interventions, that today's Government are tomorrow's Opposition. After all, those of us who are what some would call optimistic and others realistic, and believe that we shall form a Government at the next general election, know that the temptation of


having accelerated procedures are as great for Labour Governments as they are for Conservative Governments. I am speaking not simply as an Opposition spokesman but as one who has spent half of his time as a Member of Parliament as a member of Government. I remember both sides of the argument, and the Leader of the House was far-sighted and generous in the breadth of his remarks and consideration of the different position of a party in opposition and a party in government.
If the Government know, thanks to timetabling, that they will get their Bill by a certain date, that relieves them of a healthy and necessary democratic pressure. As the 1977–78 Select Committee argued, when rejecting a similar proposal, automatic timetabling reduces the pressure on the Government to respond to argument and it greatly reduces the bargaining power of the Opposition in seeking changes and concessions.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman not exaggerating the amount of pressure on the Government when they have only one difficulty, which is that they have one junior Minister and a number of their Back Benchers tied up in a Committee of which very little notice has been taken by anyone else, in the full knowledge that they will get their timetable after about 80 hours of discussion? What kind of pressure is that?

Mr. Shore: There is quite considerable pressure and I shall come later to the point about where I think the pressure is most effective. The length of time that a Bill will take is unknown when the Bill is embarked upon. A convention may have grown up about moving for a timetable motion at a certain stage, but of course many Bills that are not timetabled go for much longer than the automatic, conventional and customary period of an 80 or 100-hour guillotine.

Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman said there is usually only a junior Minister in a Standing Committee. That is surely a reflection of the extraordinary balance in this Parliament. When Standing Committees are more evenly balanced it is usual to have a senior Minister there in the knowledge that the pressure will be stronger and that concessions may have to be made to get a Bill through the Standing Committee.

Mr. Shore: The pressures on junior or senior Ministers in Committee depend on the planning of legislation. If two or three Bills are coming from the same Department at the same time, the senior Minister responsible may not be able to take part in Committees on at least one of the Bills for which he is responsible. That is undesirable and requires change in a different area, the area of administration. I was speaking about the disadvantages of what has been proposed, and I should like to quote from the report of the 1977–78 Select Committee on Procedure. Its members summed up their point by saying:
the Opposition may at present legitimately use their power of delay to cause the Government to consider making concessions in their bills. If time-tabling were general such power would be lost. This would amount to a significant constitutional development, to the detriment of all non-Ministerial Members,
I take the point made by my hon. Friend whose name has been immortalised in the Rooker-Wise amendment.

Sir William Clark: The Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment.

Mr. Shore: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember any occasion in his time when the Government of the day did not get their major legislation through, either because of attrition or because of the guillotine, with the one notable exception on the Floor of the House when there was an unholy but very effective alliance between the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) on the abolition of the House of Lords? That was a constitutional measure.

Mr. Shore: It is relatively rare, I agree, but the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has quoted one Bill on the Floor of the House. I can think of another one on the Floor of the House, perhaps the most important in my political lifetime, the European Communities Bill, which was won by a whisker, and if it had not been, the whole idea would have been killed at that time.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does my right hon. Friend remember the devolution Bill? The last Labour Government were not able to impose a guillotine on that and were eventually brought down after the referendum tie. That was the consequence of that.

Mr. Shore: That reflected the balance of forces in that Parliament: that is an important point to bear in mind. It is rare for a Bill to be killed by the process of amendment in debate; I take that point. However, it is often the case that major and minor amendments are secured by the Opposition and on Back Benchers by persisting with their amendments, by demonstrating the strength of their objections to specific proposals, and by consuming the time available for debate. It is this contest between the proponents and the opponents of a Bill that gives life to the legislative process. Few who have served in Committee on a Bill will dispute that the life goes out: of the debate a moment a guillotine is imposed. A guillotine Bill is like a Christmas turkey, plucked, trussed, gutted and ready for the oven.

Sir Peter Emery: There is no way that these recommendations will apply to Committee stages on the Floor of the House. The examples quoted by the right hon. Gentleman were examples from the Floor of the House. That will not apply in these recommendations and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House by suggesting that it will.

Mr. Shore: I said it was rare indeed for a Bill to be killed by the process of Committee stage debate, put it is not rare for a Bill to be amended and changed as a result of pressure at Committee stage. Many Bills are defective and their provisions have painful implications that are exposed only during the course of debate in Committee. These often crucial provisions cannot be anticipated when the Bill goes into Committee. They are revealed only by diligent examination, by probing amendments and by the repeated questioning and cross-questioning of Ministers.
People outside Parliament who are affected by legislation, or who have expertise in the matters covered, need time to marshal their thoughts and to communicate with Government and Opposition. It is important that such people should have the opportunity and the time to do so, not only because they have a genuine contribution to make but because at the end of the day the acceptability of controversial legislation may well be affected by the


assessment of whether proper opportunities have been given to advance all the opposing arguments, or whether the measure has simply been railroaded through the House on a fixed Government timetable. All that is well understood by hon. Members.
A great majority of highly controversial Bills are fought over, argued out and ultimately resolved, and emerge from Committee without any resort to the guillotine. The guillotine is rarely used. As the appendix to the evidence submitted to the Committee by the learned Clerk shows, in the period from 1946–47 to 1983–84, only 34 Bills in Committee were guillotined. On average, that is slightly less than one a year. Under the Select Committee proposals there would be a vast increase in the number of Bills brought under an automatic guillotine procedure. The guillotine would not be confined, as it was in the post-war period, to exceptionally protracted Bills where little progress is being made. It would be extended to all Bills that are likely to take more than 25 hours in Committee.
The establishment of a Legislative Business Committee, however senior its members—and I have no doubt that senior and responsible hon. Members would be appointed —does not overcome the fact, which the Leader of the House fairly faced, that it would contain a built-in Government majority. The objections to what is proposed, in sum, heavily outweigh the benefits claimed for the changes. I congratulate again the Leader of the House on his resolute refusal to endorse either in his evidence to the Select Committee or in his speech today what is now proposed. The amendment put down by the
hon. Member for Honiton would bring a Trojan horse into the matter and I object to that as well as to the substance of the report.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will accept that towards the end of his speech my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said he accepted that one of the problems facing hon. Members and people outside this House is that, prior to Bills reaching the stage when they are guillotined, they are debated only in part, often a minimal part. My right hon. Friend said he felt that was a justifiable criticism and that something should be done, so that we could fully debate Bills prior to guillotine or Bills that were not to be guillotined to ensure that each clause, or most clauses, were fully considered. That would require the co-operation of the Opposition. If this motion is voted down, will the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, co-operate with the Leader of the House to see that proper time is given to debate all clauses of Bills that are not fully debated at present?

Mr. Shore: The Opposition's approach to all Bills in Committee is extremely intelligent, well-balanced and carefully thought out, but that does not mean that the Opposition's handling of Bills in Committee could not be improved from time to time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has gained some satisfaction from those remarks.

Sir William Clark: rose——

Mr. Shore: I shall not give way again, because I have already given way a great deal.
The timetable proposals are not only unacceptable, they are unnecessary. I have already drawn attention to the few

Bills that have been guillotined since the war. Nevertheless, the power of guillotine is there all the time. Governments of both parties have used it and will use it in the future. Indeed, it needs only a three-hour debate for the Government to obtain a timetable motion. I agree with the Leader of the House that the appropriate time that should elapse before the Government seek a timetable motion should not be decided by applying arbitrary or conventional formulae, but should be decided on the merits of each case.
With the Leader of the House, I believe that we are better served by our present procedures than we would be by those proposed in the Select Committee report and the amendment. I advise the House to reject them.

5 pm

Sir Peter Emery: I thank the members of the Procedure Committee who, during the past two Sessions, have spent many arduous hours working quietly behind the scenes to no political advantage. I also thank the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who was a member of the Committee for part of the time. The Committee tries to ensure some modernisation of the proceedings of the House.
The most important part of the debate relates to Committee proceedings on public Bills, and I remind the House that it specifically asked my Committee to consider that matter and make recommendations on it. From some of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), it would appear that they have experience of very different Committees from the ones on which I have served during the past 25 years. The Procedure Committee wishes to overcome the more archaic procedural nonsense of the House and drag it into the 20th century. At the same time, it wishes to overcome some of the restrictive practices or procedural madnesses that surround the present timetabling of Bills, which are apparently retained only for a purely party political fandango.
What normal person could believe that it makes sense to retain a procedure that condemns Members of Parliament considering the most controversial legislation to waste 80 or 100 hours on the first three, four or five clauses of a Bill so that a timetable can be forced on the Government—a procedure which, when applied, means that 30, 40 or sometimes 100 clauses of major Bills go to the House of Lords almost without any consideration by the Committee? Who, other than someone soft in the head, could believe that, in this day and age, it makes sense for serious amendments to major legislation to be considered after a full working day by a Committee sitting at 2 am or 3 am, and sometimes even at 7 am or 8 am? People outside the House think that we are mad.
May I refer to some of the less contentious recommendations of the Committee. I am pleased that the Government welcome our recommendation to include Special Standing Committees permanently in the Standing Orders. With the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, I hope that that procedure will be used much more than it has been. Every Minister who gave evidence to the Committee and who was in charge of a Bill that went to a Special Standing Committee suggested that it greatly helped his handling of the Bill. The only other amendment tabled by the Committee would extend the right to request


Special Standing Committee procedures to the Opposition Front Bench and other Members of the House. It should not be reserved to Ministers.
It may have escaped hon. Members' notice that the Committee's recommendation would mean that the motion is not debatable. The Committee has tried to balance matters so that the Government do not lose time. Instead of having a debatable motion, the question should be put forthwith, but we have suggested that hon. Members other than Ministers should be allowed to propose it.
The closure in Committee is to be known as the "Golding gallop" after a loophole found by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I hope that I can congratulate the hon. Gentleman later today on having won a position of importance in his trade union. He will be missed by the Committee, and I hope that this will not be his swansong.
As to written or oral questions lost, one point was not raised by the Committee, but was made by the Government. One reason for not accepting that an oral question should automatically become a written question would be that the hon. Member would be debarred for six months from tabling that question for oral answer. He may not wish to do that, but he may be unable to withdraw the question because the House is not sitting. It might be better to allow the Government's suggestion to go forward, but I have no major views on that. The recommendation on Standing Order No.10 applications must be an improvement.
The main procedural amendment has been signed by more than 150 right hon. and hon. Members. It is wrong to say, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did, that the vast majority of them were elected in the previous two elections. The list includes a former Opposition Chief Whip, who was elected a long time ago. It also includes right hon. and hon. Members who have been in the House for a long time. That comment was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard of intervention. It is interesting to note that support for the amendment comes from both sides of the House, from former Whips, former Ministers—Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.

Mr. Rooker: How many of those who signed the amendment have been in the position of being a Government Back-Bench Member seriously fighting his Government and using the time available? The list might be full of former Whips, but how many of those people ever rebelled against their Government? How many of them will vote for an amendment that would stop that happening in the future?

Sir Peter Emery: I do not understand how that can be relevant to the general recommendation. I am surprised that the Government have not mentioned one of the dangers to them. When there is a guillotine motion in the offing the chances of getting Back-Bench Government Members to side with the Opposition, in the nonsense debates beforehand, is very slight. The chances of getting Government Members to side with Opposition Members against the Government are much higher in a moderate and sensible debate without the high political structure of a guillotine.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: More often than not, Ministers get an inkling that there might be a revolt on their own side, and the temptation to encourage ultra-loyal Members on their own side to take

up time on less controversial bids can well ensure that the key bids, where there might be cross-over voting, are never reached and that debate does not take place.

Sir Peter Emery: The Committee considered that and made recommendations to ensure that all parts of the Bill are considered. I, like many others, have taken Bills through Committee. Of course one attempts to look to one's loyal supporters—only a fool would not. I am under no misapprehension that it is much more difficult to get hon. Members to co-operate if there is a calm structure in the Committee than if there is a high political tone against the Opposition.

Sir William Clark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Certainly, but I am trying to keep to a 10-minute speech.

Sir William Clark: Will my hon. Friend consider the Finance Bill which comes up each year? For example, Government Back Benchers might table amendments to clause 60, and clauses 50 to 60 might be grouped together in the timetable. If the Opposition do not like the Back-Bench Tory Government amendments to clause 60, they could be talked out, or rather not reached. How do we overcome that? From my experience of serving on many Finance Bills, if every clause is considered, despite the fact that one is under a guillotine, every clause is debated and each Back Bencher, Government or Opposition, has the opportunity to move an amendment.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's last contention, but I do accept that the Legislative Business Committee, of which he might be a member, should have to analyse the normal proceedings in Finance Bills for many years to make sensible conclusions about the length of time that is required.
However—of I think this is the only exception to what the Committee says —if the Finance Bill is a special case, as it used to be because it was debated entirely on the Floor of the House, it would be exempted, from that procedure. It does not have to be exempted but that is a major possibility.
The approach to legislation of the Procedure Committee, of the Government and of the Opposition, obviously start from entirely different points of view. The Government have to ensure that their necessary and excellent legislation is obtained as expeditiously and quickly as possible. The Opposition have the right to examine, harry, oppose and delay legislation whenever they wish. The Procedure Committee takes the view that, once the principle of legislation is agreed on Second Reading, the House has a duty, which the country expects it to fulfil, to ensure that Committees will examine the Bill reasonably and fully to ensure that the legislation makes sense and is not full of nonsenses that will require correction by further legislation. The House should also consider representations from those affected and improve the Bill wherever necessary. The objectives of Opposition and Government need not be in conflict with the approach of the Procedure Committee, and I believe that our recommendations are not in conflict with their objectives.
I shall explain the workings of our recommendation because there is massive misunderstanding of it. Even on the BBC today, having had the matter explained, it was suggested that the Procedure Committee was trying to limit time on all Committees to 25 hours. That is absolute


nonsense. There is some misunderstanding on both Front Benches. The flexibility remains. The suggestion that it does not is unfair and unworthy. After Second Reading, every Government Bill will be considered by the Committee.
It is thought that certain action should follow after 25 hours. If there is any weakness in the proposal, it is that 25 hours is too little. Perhaps it ought to be 30 or 35 hours. However, the Committee recommended 25. The principle is the same. There can be prolonged debate in Committee on Bills which everyone knows will be guillotined. We should not pretend that there is marvellous argument and consideration of every amendment for 80 or 90 hours before the guillotine is brought in. That is not living in the real world and it is unworthy of the Front Bench to suggest that it is.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when they go into Standing Committees, the public see not reasonable debate but hon. Members, especially on the Government side, answering their mail and doing other work? Does my hon. Friend agree that, although that may be very worthy, it is not good for the reputation of Parliament?

Sir Peter Emery: I agree. That has been the case for many years. The operation of the recommendation would allow some flexibility. If, when the set hours are reached, any new matter has arisen in Committee, it would be possible to go back to the Legislative Business Committee for an extension, if one is thought necessary.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: If a Bill has not been guillotined, but it has been examined by that Committee, the Government are frustrated because other Bills are being guillotined and turn the heat on the Bill, can they apply for a guillotine?

Sir Peter Emery: Yes. I shall explain how later. The House —through the voice of a Committee of senior Back Bench Members—not the Government will decide that the most contentious and controversial Bills, which everyone knows that the Government will duly guillotine, will be timetabled from the start of their Committee stage. The new procedure would be used, rather than our having to waste the 100-odd hours on a few clauses until the guillotine is introduced.
A shibboleth that has been adopted by both major parties—that time is power and delaying legislation in Committee wreaks havoc on the Government or stops legislation getting through —is no longer true, if it ever was. The only havoc created is for the poor hon. Members who have to go through the party political charade of wasting time and sitting through all hours of the day and night.
As to stopping legislation, the Clerk of the House can find no instance in the last 20 years where delay in Committee upstairs has meant that the Government have lost a Bill they wished to have on the statute book. That is the major point, because there is not the flexibility that the Opposition say there is. Nor is there any case of delay in one Bill stopping other Bills listed in the Queen's Speech being enacted. There is no proof of that. Everybody knows that when a Bill goes into Committee the Government Whips office has a date by which the Bill

has to be out from Committee in order to go into the House of Lords. If the Opposition use all that time, in comes the guillotine. Why, therefore, try to suggest that there is any flexibility for the Opposition?

Mr. A. F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the case of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill and the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, very substantial Bills on which the Government were keen not to introduce the guillotine, substantial alterations were made during their passage which the Opposition, I am sure, could claim improved the Bills, and that a lot of that improvement would not have been possible if right from the start there had been a rigid timetable?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Member can argue that quite fairly. What I would counter-argue is that I believe that, with the proper consideration of the Legislative Business Committee, appropriate time would have been given. There is just as much right in that being the case as in the point put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyne): rose——

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No Bill can be stopped in the House if it has the Government's backing unless it is objected to on the Floor of the House. Even that has to be done with the connivance of Government Back Benchers. If it is upstairs, it must get through its stage, however long it may take.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is obviously right.
Two other suggestions have been made, which have to be considered. One is that we are limiting the power of Government to ensure that they obtain their legislation. This is not so, because the Government—this answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham)—by Standing Order No. 46 will still have the power to introduce their own guillotine motion, as they do at present, if they are dissatisfied with the decision on timing. What will have been achieved, however, is that the Legislative Business Committee will have stated quite clearly the time which it considers is necessary to consider a Bill. Therefore, if the Government wish to alter that decision, I believe there will be somewhat more ire than at present with the proposal to timetable. Only in this instance could there be said to be a limitation on the Government's freewheeling in obtaining their legislation.
Secondly, it is claimed that the power of the Opposition is limited. Again I dispute this. As I have clearly said, delay in Committee upstairs does not stop Government legislation; nor in recent history have there been any Government concessions forced because of delay — forced because of argument, forced because of reason, but not forced necessarily because of delay.
What our new proposals do is to give the Opposition considerable power from the start of contentious Bills—a major say in how the time in Committee upstairs will be allocated. Hon. Members who have experience of these matters will know that in a business Sub-Committee of a Bill, which is the way that time would be allocated, the Government will nearly always heed the wishes of the Opposition. In order that minority parties are not left out, we have increased the numbers who shall serve on those business Sub-Committees.
Finally, on the recommendations, the Procedure Committee believes that if these recommendations are


worked properly there will be no need for Committees to have to sit all night. Therefore, a 10 o'clock time for rising of Standing Committees is recommended. One Opposition Member proposed that it might be at the rising of the House. One can understand that, but one is attempting to get a set hour for rising.
This is an integral part of the overall recommendation. The Government, once they know the number of hours allocated to a Committee, should not be allowed to crash through their legislation by making a Committee use up a specified time with all-night sittings or unreasonable sittings motions.
Another major matter needs consideration. If a Bill is to be timetabled, the Government must come to the House to obtain permission. This is thought by tradition to be of great importance. There is no doubt that 20 years ago a guillotine motion created considerable hubbub and anger in the House and for a while raised political temperatures outside the House. I look back to the guillotine of the Transport Bill under Mr. Crossman. The debate on the guillotine itself ran to 5 am before the Division was taken. After the guillotine, two months of extra time had to be given. I know, because I took part in that demonstration.
That does not apply today. On the last guillotine motion, announced in business questions only three weeks ago, there was not one question or voice of anger against it being introduced. I have to point out that, when the Leader of the Opposition got up on this major matter, only eight Members were sitting behind him with their wrath and their fury. That really is nonsense. We are trying to save time on the Floor of the House, and we could certainly save two or three days by cutting out those aspects of legislation.
In closing—I apologise to the House for having been so long—I thank the Leader of the House for his kind remarks about the Committee and for accepting a large number of our recommendations. He has also shown the greatest kindness and willingness to meet and help the Committee, although I could not for one moment suggest that the Leader of the House was the shining spearhead of innovative reform. I am sorry to have to cross swords with him on this main recommendation concerning timetabling motions. Rather I would plead that his massive intellectual strength must suggest to him that a one-year experiment cannot be other than reasonable. Surely if we do not try to see by experiment and test whether more sensible measures will work in the procedure of the House, we condemn the procedure of the House to continue to live in the 19th century. That is not what the Procedure Committee recommends. I therefore ask both sides of the House to give their support to the Procedure Committee so that we can carry forward the necessary experiment for 12 months.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has naturally defended the recommendations of his Committee with great skill and determination, as we would expect of him, and of course the House owes a great deal to those who spent so much time, as he and others have done, in making these recommendations and in doing their work so thoroughly. Therefore, in criticising what he proposes, I in no way wish to criticise him or the way in which he has made the recommendations.
I was not properly present when the resolution was passed limiting speeches to 10 minutes. If I had been, I would have voted against it. I have never believed such a limitation to be of service to Back Benchers. It may assist the Government in enabling business to be conducted in a most orderly manner, but on many occasions 10 minutes may be an inadequate time for a Back-Bench Member, in particular, to put his case. The hon. Member for Honiton gave an illustration of it. Indeed, he took over the 10 minutes that he is recommending.
If Aneurin Bevan or Winston Churchill had been limited to 10 minutes when they sat on the Back Benches, the Front Bench would have profited from it. That is why these factors have to be taken into account. Recommendations which supposedly are in the interests of Back Benchers very often have the opposite effect when they are applied in practice.
I agree with every word of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He put the case overwhelmingly. He was assisted by the remarkable speech of the Leader of the House. The House has been very well served by the right hon. Gentleman. Nobody has been better served than the Government. They would have been in an appalling shambles week after week had it not been for the Leader of the House. I know that the praise that I offer him does him damage in the highest quarters. None the less, I must continue to do it in the interests of truth.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable contribution to this Parliament. Week after week the Government have been in a state of chaos and shambles. They have not known which way to turn. However, along comes the right hon. Gentleman each Thursday and suggests that everything is orderly and fine. If any controversial question is raised, he does not quite hear what is said. If my right hon. and hon. Friends ask questions about Bates' colliery, he cannot quite hear them. But he has been admirable. As I have watched the right hon. Gentleman, I have been reminded of the occasions when in my youth——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: No, not for the moment.
I am reminded of the occasions when in my youth I went to see the films of Buster Keaton. He was my favourite actor. Week after week he was landed in the most appalling difficulties and faced the most appalling shambles. He was in car crashes and train crashes and was caught up in all kinds of difficulties. However, week after week he batted not an eyelid for a moment. He assured everybody that everything in the garden was splendid. So the right hon. Gentleman is the Buster Keaton of the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not the right hon. Gentleman proving the point for 10-minute speeches? When time is short in a serious debate, the 10 minutes rule concentrates speeches upon the matter under discussion.

Mr. Foot: It may concentrate speeches, but it may also invite hon. Members not to give way. Indeed, that happens on many occasions. When the 10-minute limit is imposed it is very rare for hon. Members to give way.
I am seeking to compliment the right hon. Gentleman upon his presentation of these matters to the House. He has


protected the Government from one disaster after another. It is upon his shoulders that week after week the Government have depended. All the more, therefore, should we pay attention to what he says today. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman would discuss these matters in the legislative business committee or in the Cabinet, but if he said that they ought to grab this report and run because it is of immediate advantage to the Government, I am sure that he would carry the day.
The House of Commons owes a great debt of gratitude to the Leader of the House for his speech. It protects the position not only of the present Government but of future Governments and future Oppositions. I commend especially strongly his rejection of an experiment for one year. We know what happens to experiments for one year. They can be there 10,15 or 20 years later, thus still riveting the original imposition on the House of Commons. I hope that the House will not think that if it decides to look again at this matter in 12 months' time there is no need to worry about it.
Both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches recognise that if the Government had a more orderly timetable ahead of them for 12 months, or for two or three Sessions, and knew that they would be able to get through nearly all of their legislation without any infringement, upsets or difficulties—timetable motions would contribute to that knowledge—they would have to pay much less attention to the House of Commons, to Back Benchers on both sides of the House and to the campaigns that are mobilised outside the House of Commons to bring pressure to bear upon hon. Members. A Government that had available to them all that power would be tempted to be even more dictatorial than Governments are tempted to be now.
One of the main reasons for the Government having been tempted to be so dictatorial during the past two or three years, especially in recent months, is the danger that was described by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) after the general election: that the Government had such a huge majority. The Government have not, therefore, been too worried. It was only when certain Conservative Members joined Opposition Members that the Government were brought to their senses, or at least were brought nearer to their senses, on many of these matters. The House of Commons then began to re-establish some of its control over the Executive. If the Government were sure at the beginning of a Session that the Standing Committee procedure was to be cut and dried and that there would be very few upsets, their position facing the House of Commons would be enormously strengthened, but it would do injury to Parliament.
There have been other developments which, far from necessarily assisting the power of the House of Commons, have in my opinion injured it. Many of these developments have injured the authority of this Chamber and the way in which it can be exerted. We have to guard against any such infringements and dangers. The Leader of the House, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, has ensured on this occasion that we shall not depart from the proper protection of the right of the House of Commons to criticise the Executive, to choose the time at which to do it and not to have that time dictated to it by the Government.

Mr. W. Benyon: I see that I must address my remarks to Buster Keaton. My right hon. Friend has got into a mess, but he will find it very difficult to get out of. I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). In this short debate I see no point in rehearsing the arguments that were considered so extensively by the Select Committee on Procedure. I congratulate the Committee upon its work.
I am a vice-chairman of the all-party House of Commons reform group, where I sit under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who has had to leave the Chamber. It is no secret —it is in our evidence to the Select Committee—that we wished to go much further than the Select Committee has gone. We wanted to entrench the 10 o'clock rule. We wanted also to have fixed Sessions of Parliament to achieve a better balance vis-à-vis the Executive. However, it is abundantly clear from the circular that we sent to all right hon. and hon. Members that the vast majority of Back Benchers accept and support the generality of the Select Committee's recommendations.
This is a House of Commons day, a Back-Bench Members' day. If this amendment is lost, I make so bold as to say that we shall not see reforms of this nature for many a long day. What a farce it is that this first hesitant step towards a more sensible arrangement has brought down on itself the full force of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
Yet even in my relatively short time in the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said, a guillotine has passed from being a major parliamentary occasion to being absolutely an inevitable, boring routine, with predictable speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We all know that the present arrangements——

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benyon: I cannot give way; many hon. Members wish to speak. I normally do so, but I cannot on this occasion.
The present arrangements are a stupid way to consider legislation in Committee. There is no doubt about that in the minds of most of my hon. Friends. We all know the pattern of delays in the early stages, followed by the inevitable guillotine and eventual Royal Assent. The so- called delaying power about which we have heard so much this afternoon is illusory. I have sat on Committees dealing with the type of Bills that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was talking about. Votes stop legislation.
Anyway, who is to say that the Legislative Business Committee will not fix a much longer Committee stage than that which takes place, normally, after the guillotine is brought in? Who is to say that a future Leader of the House will not take up the point made at the end of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and bring in a shorter guillotine at an earlier time? What my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested about bringing in timetable motions before the 80 hours have elapsed is precisely what could happen. The amendment is protection for the House.
The real reason why the idea has produced such a reaction is the increasing contempt in which Governments of both parties have progressively regarded the House of


Commons. The idea that the House of Commons should take to itself even the smallest measure of what is carried out through the usual channels sends shivers down a lot of spines. That is why the vote tonight is so important.
If the amendment is lost, we shall stagger on with a procedure that is both antiquated and discredited. The Select Committee will realise that its only role in future will be to consider trivia. Parliament will suffer, because the people will realise that any reform, no matter how modest or tentative, will not stand a chance of success against the entrenched and ever more powerful Executive. Let us try this modest reform for the short period of one year, and see what happens. I would have preferred something more dramatic and extensive, but, like Cardinal Newman in his famous hymn,
I do not ask to see the distant scene,
One step enough for me".

Mr. A.J. Beith: As the first member of the Committee to speak after the Chairman, I pay tribute to him. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is a hard but courteous taskmaster, as the number of our reports demonstrates. I pay tribute to the way in which he runs our affairs.
One controversial recommendation of the Select Committee relates to short speeches. The Committee took the view that the 10-minute experiment should be repeated, but acknowledged that its effects have been relatively small. A price must be paid for the small benefit of perhaps one or two more Members being called in a debate. I know that some of my hon. Friends are not happy about the experiment continuing. The rule leads hon. Members to say that they are unwilling to give way. That even extends beyond the time in which the rule is in operation, because it becomes an excuse for Ministers speaking early in the debate to claim pressure of time.
I believe that Ministers should give way often. A long speech from a Minister subjected to many interventions is a service to the House if it enables points to be explored in detail. The Committee's report states:
We have no doubt that Mr. Speaker will take into account the importance of his being able to call the spokesmen of parties other than the Official Opposition … before the rule comes into operation.
I mention that because it has been a difficulty. If the Minister speaks for an hour, the Opposition Front Bench speech lasts three quarters of an hour and our spokesman is confined to 10 minutes, he will have no chance to cover the range of matters to which arguments have been addressed by others. I am grateful to the Committee for placing that proviso on the record, although it will remain a controversial point.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has accepted the recommendation on Special Standing Committees. The evidence of the Solicitor-General especially struck me during the proceedings. He has a way of committing interesting things to paper, some of which are not intended for publication. On that occasion, he discussed the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. He stated:
I had the salutary experience of cross-examining two of the leading authorities on criminal law … as to the likely effect of a Bill about whose provisions I was already experiencing a sinking feeling …
At the end of the final sitting of the special standing committee the draftsman informed me that not only did the Bill not do what it was supposed to do but that it could not be made to do it.

It is unnecessary to relate here the unorthodox and urgent steps that were then taken to recast that part of the Bill in time for the resulting vast array of amendments to be on the paper when the ordinary standing committee first met the following week. The point is that, it was better that those defects became apparent before the ordinary standing committee began its examination of the Bill … I gratefully recognised this at the time and have never forgotten it.
That is testimony to the value of the Special Standing Committee procedure.
I welcome the ingenious solution to the problem of the long opening speech in Committee —the power of the Chair to propose the Question—which is much better than the alternative of curtailing the debate on the amendment being moved.
I welcome the fact that we are getting rid of the Third Reading blocking motion, which is an interesting illustration of how procedures can be devised which the House does not follow. It has become automatic practice to table Third Reading blocking motions to the extent that parties fall over each other to table them. The House should have the opportunity to decide whether it wishes to debate a Bill on Third Reading and that would be the effect of removing the blocking motion.
I welcome the recommendation to limit Standing Order No. 10 applications to three minutes. I agree with the point that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised in several interventions. An hon. Member who has applied for a private notice question should not, in my humble submission, be told by the Chair that he should not make a Standing Order No. 10 application out of the question. By putting in a private notice question application he is creating the chance that his arguments will get a reply. That does not happen with a Standing Order No. 10 application unless a debate is granted. The hon. Member who fairly says privately to the Chair that if possible he would like to ask a private notice question so that others can join in and an answer can be given should not be told that if that is not granted he cannot make a Standing Order No. 10 application. The hon. Member who takes the fair route first should not be disadvantaged.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will prevail upon his hon. Friends to forbear from putting down Standing Order No. 10 applications on occasions when we have radio broadcasts of debates straight from the Chamber.

Mr. Beith: Certainly not; it is an appropriate time to do it. If the Chair were not occupied by Mr. Speaker and if he were free to take part in the debate, I am sure that he could tell us in some detail how large numbers of Standing Order No.10 applications were tabled at the time of the Labour Government when the winter of discontent and many strikes and disputes were taking place. There are some time-honoured procedures by which hon. Members can bring grievances to light.
The Select Committee raised the fundamental question of the timetable of Bills. I was especially struck by the statement of the Leader of the House that the proposals might disturb the way in which Governments and Oppositions go about their business in the House. There is an air that traditional ways of doing things might be disturbed, but that is right and intended. I do not need to dwell on the arguments about how absurd the present arangements are. At one time the fear of having to bring forward a timetable motion might have been enough of a threat to Governments to encourage them to make


concessions, but I cannot believe that that is so now. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has demonstrated that fact vividly. He introduced five in one day. Since that time, any modest timetable motion introduced by a Government has been as uncontroversial as a spring morning. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can claim that the Committee is disturbing the established rights of Back Benchers when he found an easier and briefer way of doing so — five timetable motions in one day.
The House is being asked to consider a much more elaborate procedure to enable hon. Members, especially Back Benchers, to play a part in the orderly consideration of Government Bills. As I suggested in an intervention, I do not think that having a Committee tied up for 80 hours imposes a great burden on the Government. Having a junior Minister and a number of Back Benchers dragooned into sitting in Committee does not place a tremendous pressure on the Government.
None of that applies to Bills taken on the Floor of the House. None of these recommendations applies to Bills taken on the Floor of the House. The power of delay on the Floor of the House is effective. That is why hon. Members are so jealous of the right to keep Bills on the Floor of the House when they concern constitutional matters. That does not apply to the limited number of hon. Members who are tied up in Committee.
I attach importance to the proposed Legislative Business Committee being a body wider than the usual channels. Hon. Members should not be led astray by the suggestion that such a body should not be created because they are already well represented under existing arrangements. They have been told, "Do not worry. The Whips will look after your interests. It is undesirable that you should be represented on some larger body which will be involved in these matters." Back Benchers should reject that argument quickly.
The House is asked to sanction an experiment to consider in an orderly way how time might be used in discussing Bills, which we know will eventually have time restrictions imposed on them, and to consider ways in which the process of deciding on that time can involve more hon. Members than at present.
The Leader of the House offered hon. Members an interesting alternative. He suggested that, rather than vote for these proposals, hon. Members should note that he had been seriously influenced by all that had been said about the defects of the present procedure and that he would consider, perhaps with the assistance of his counterpart on the Opposition Front Bench, whether something could be done through the usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman could gain an attractive uncovenanted bonus from today's proceedings. He has only to bring forward timetable motions much earlier, taking into account the feelings expressed in the House this afternoon, without providing any of the safeguards that the Select Committee on Procedure sought to provide and without ensuring that there is a Legislative Business Committee and certain procedures concerning the time to be allocated.
I say to hon. Members, do not fall for that one. If the amendment of the hon. Member for Honiton is defeated, I fear that the Leader of the House will go away and say, "Now I have the sanction for which I am looking to bring forward timetable motions much earlier. Clearly, this

80-hour business has become outdated." The Government will have gained a great deal, but Back Benchers generally and the Opposition will not.
That is why the Select Committee on Procedure put forward a whole package and asked the House to accept that package as a whole. It will not be enormously to the advantage of Governments. There are some advantages for Government and some for Back Benchers in it. It is a reasonable overall package. If we do not accept the recommendations, we shall continue with the absurdity of many hours being spent on a few clauses of a Bill and the rest of the Bill being gabbled through, with numbers read out as the guillotine falls—a procedure that is an insult to the people who have to carry out the legislation and those who have to live with it and its consequences. That is unreasonable. Either we shall have that or we shall have much earlier timetable motions, with all the disadvantages of the present procedures and none of the safeguards which the Committee sought to give. I therefore invite the House to support the sensible proposal of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Sir John Farr: I have always felt instinctively inclined to support the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, but the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) that the all-party House of Commons reform group supported the recommendations made me wonder whether the Select Committee's recommendations were correct after all. I have never yet found anything produced by the reform group with which I could agree.

Mr. Benyon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir John Farr: I shall not give way. I do not have time.
On reflection, my initial instinct, which was to support my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), has been tempered. I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the report should be noted.
I have had experience of introducing private Members' Bills which have been tied down in Committee by Governments. I am particularly worried about the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure, because the Committee seems to assume that, for almost as far ahead as one can perceive, we shall have a party in power with a large majority —in this case a Conservative majority.
I well remember in years gone by the value of existing checks and barriers to prevent legislation from going forward. The Select Committee is seeking to change those barriers in respect of Government Bills. In past years, as an Opposition Back Bencher, I rejoiced at the existence of these checks. They made life difficult for those Governments—whatever the political party—who have not sufficiently respected the Opposition and have found life too easy.
If the Select Committee's recommendations on Government business are accepted and life for Government measures is made easier, sooner or later, as surely as day follows night, that will be translated into action on private Members' measures, and we will then be in a real chamber of horrors. In recent years a succession of private Members' Bills have been introduced which have been kept under control and at bay by existing


barriers. Any relaxation of the present system will make life easier for some of the extremists, giving them more time, and make it easier for some extreme measures to be passed. The present structure and system have stood the test of time in keeping those measures out.
I welcome the suggestion on the 10-minutes rule for speeches. We must remember that this is the first Parliament with a large number of extra Members. There are now 650 Members of Parliament. This places extra pressure on the Chair from Back Benchers wishing to make speeches. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House welcomes this proposal.
I fully support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has grave reservations about the recommendations of the Select Committee. I shall join him in the Lobby in voting against the change.

Mr. John Golding: I want to talk, first, about the Government amendment to curb exceptionally long speeches. I was hurt to hear the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) suggest that the measure was prompted by my 11¼-hour speech, which has gone into the "Guinness I3ook of Records" and has been celebrated in cartoon by P.C. Nuttall. I do not regard an 11¼-hour speech as exceptionally long. Be that as it may, the speech was serious, coherent and in order; in other words, it was quite out of the ordinary.
Why has that speech aroused so much antagonism? There are two reasons: first, on that occasion, I actually knew what I was talking about; secondly, from time to time, it contained the occasional joke. When I first came into the House it was considered binding on Members making long speeches that at least they be entertaining. That convention seems to have disappeared. Now we have what is called the turgid fashion. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referring in the Tea Room—I should not repeat this—to one of the present exponents as "Golding without the jokes". I cannot add any more to this, because it is sub judice and substantial damages are expected.
If exceptionally long speeches are to be avoided in the future I shall feel sorry, in one way, for certain Members. After I made my 11¼-hour speech, I was rung up by correspondents from periodicals and newspapers all over the world. They were not political correspondents, but rather the editors of women's journals asking the reason for the stamina that was shown. That was the interest shown in the speech. That did not apply to my own wife. I returned to my constituency on the following Saturday and was shocked at the headline, which read: "MP's wife says he goes on a bit." That was the total impact of that 11¼- hour speech.
I shall support the Government in their attempt to stop exceptionally long speeches. Today I was elected general secretary of the National Communications Union, and I shall be leaving the House. To keep my record I need the support of Members this evening. It is not only my pride that is at stake. Filibustering, if it is to be called that, is a painful business and should be brought to an end. I disagree with many of my hon. Friends on this point.
I am not talking about the pain to the Chairman—I still get into trouble with my wife because I keep on saying "Miss Fookes" in my sleep. I am not talking about Ministers —the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and

Industry, still bears the scars on his face. I am not referring to the ladies of the Tea Room—at 4 o'clock in the morning their general response to Members like me is "Do you not have a so-and-so home to go to?" Nor am I referring to the Doorkeepers and policemen who look rather bleary eyed at those of us who are keeping them up. No, I am not speaking in their defence. They have said too many hard things about me in the past, and I shall not jump to their defence.
I am referring to those who are asked by the Whips to talk for an exceptional length. Most Members will not know the horror of being pushed in to the Chamber and told that one has to speak at length—the Whips may have said that one must speak for two hours—arid to speak wisely, without knowing what the amendment is about. The terror of wondering whether one will be given the Amendment Paper open at the right page so that one may begin one's speech is unknown to many hon. Members. No one knows the terror of clashing with the Chairman who has a 9 o'clock plane to catch to Glasgow. Nobody knows the dull ache in the legs, which are weaker than the tongue, or the realisation that nature calls.
To speak for an exceptional length of time is sometimes a difficult task. I regard it as equivalent to the young lieutenants of the first work'. war who were charged with the job of leading the charge from the trenches. They did not want to do it, but did so because it was expected of them, and they did it for England. No one speaks at exceptional length out of choice. Hon. Members do it out of a duty imposed on them. They would like to be relieved of that duty, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Honiton would relieve them of that obligation.
I also support timetabling, not only out of sympathy for those who are called upon to hold up business, but because it is opposed by the Prime Minister. Although it has not been mentioned, I understand that Ministers have been summoned from all parts of the world to be here this evening to vote against this proposal. Why have they been sent for? The Prime Minister does not dislike or oppose exceptionally long speeches—she never actually listens. To the Prime Minister, an exceptionally long speech is something about which she may be told in idle conversation. The Prime Minister wants to defeat this proposition because she knows that her days are numbered. The Prime Minister knows that we will have a Labour Government. She has given up governing and has adopted an Opposition mentality. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to give up their Opposition mentality, for they will be in government.
I shall not be here, Mr. Speaker, but I constantly think of your needs. A Labour Government need timetabling, and everyone on the Opposition Benches who supports Labour should support the motion. I disagree with the hon. Member for Honiton. If Labour had won the last election, the Telecommunications Bill would have been dead, because we fought it and spoke against it at length. We held it up in Committee. That Bill would have gone, because we opposed it.
When I have left the House and I am sitting in the union offices, I do not want to read that Conservative Members have the same facility to stop putting British Telecom back into public ownership. There is only one way in which a Labour Government will be able to do what they want 1:0 do, and that is to prevent the time wasting that the present situation permits. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will take a different view, but when he is sitting here


as a senior Minister and young slips of lads from the Conservative party are keeping him up all night he will change his mind.

Mr. Rooker: I agree with my hon. Friend that we shall have a Labour Government, but it will be a Labour Government who truly believe in the supremacy of Parliament. That is the point. The present Government ignore Parliament and ride roughshod over the House of Commons. It is on this that I and my hon. Friend divide.

Mr. Foot: Quite right.

Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend of the five guillotine motions supports my hon. Friend's view of the supremacy of Parliament.
I have reservations and I have placed them down as amendments. It is a relief to me that they were not called, because Members would have had to vote on them at 7 o'clock on a Thursday and that would have made me very unpopular. The usual channels must not be undermined. I think too little praise has been bestowed on this excellent system. This House depends on conflicts, and our democracy depends upon conflict in the House. The Government depend upon that conflict being kept within bounds. The one thing that the usual channels do is to ensure constantly that the system works.
I want the system to continue to work. Any new Committee system must take into account the fact that the usual channels will have to negotiate over wide areas of business. I should not like to see the usual channels thrust aside by the Procedure Committee.
If we must have timetabling, we must also deal with the question of how much time Government supporters should take up, because it is not just Government supporters who oppose the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is the exception. Most of us are elected under a party label to support the party.

Mr. Rooker: That is what I was doing.

Mr. Golding: That is what most of us do. Most of us are loyal to our parties and loyal to the promise that we made to our electorate to support the party. If I were the Secretary of State on a Committee that was timetabled, my first thought would be to find a young man who wanted to make his name and who was prepared to talk and talk and talk in support of the Government, thereby squeezing out Opposition speeches of criticism. We must solve that problem. It can be solved only by agreements that are kept and worked out through the usual channels. If that is not done, the proposal is a charter for the Government-lackey filibuster and our democracy would be the worse for it.
I have tabled an amendment which has not been selected. It says, "Get rid of the 10 o'clock rule and relate the ending of the Committee to the rising of the House." The 10 o'clock rule is nonsense in practice. If the House sits late on a Tuesday, what sense is there in saying to hon. Members, "Finish in Committee and go and hang around the Tea Rooms until the early hours"? They will say that they might as well be in Committee. Everyone knows that Members would prefer to work late on Tuesdays and finish early on Thursdays.
Shop stewards are required in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was called the shop steward. We have missed his services since he

became a distinguished journalist. If the 10 o'clock rule is abolished, we must find a device which prevents the Government from using up all the hours in one fell swoop and getting the legislation through quickly.
A Bill needs a certain length of time in Committee, because outside interests which want to make representations need a little time to wake up to what is happening in Parliament. We need a rule related to the rising of the House, and a limited number of weeks for the Opposition and for Government supporters who want to support or oppose the Government.
I was asked by many hon. Members to spin out my speech because they do not like the proposals, but that I will not do. I echo those who say that the present rules are daft. It cannot be right to waste so much time when we could be getting on with our business. If we do not change the rules, there is an obligation on people like me who came here to support the Labour electorate to exploit the rules in the interest of our party. It is better to change the rules and stop that daft system.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I am strengthened in my view by the knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not content merely to rely upon his eloquence and persuasion but wishes to rely upon a three-line Whip upon Ministers and their Parliamentary Private Secretaries later this evening. If my right hon. Friend's arguments were so strong, why cannot he leave them to the House on a truly free vote?
It was implied earlier that the members of the 1983 intake did not count in the House. They have probably had more than their fair share of work on Committees which have had to be guillotined. [Interruption.] I accept that other hon. Members have done that. I do not believe that my recent experience is such that it disqualifies me from telling the House of my immediate impressions. I have served on Standing Committees on two Bills that have been guillotined—the Rates Bill and the Transport Bill.
My experience on the Rates Bill was that soon after the Committee stage began I was told that we would have to clock up 80 hours and we would then be able to have a guillotine, which would be marvellous because after that, as Government Back Benchers, we would be allowed to take part in the debate. When the Bill was guillotined, about two pages of it had been debated. The proceedings struck me as a farce. It was a waste of the time and energy of hon. Members. What a childish game it was counting the hours. We were allowed to include in the calculations the period during which the sitting was suspended for dinner and for votes in the House. We were also allowed to include the time taken for various coffee breaks or breaks for other forms of sustenance in the early hours of the morning.
It was in anticipation of one of those breaks that the Committee had one of its moments of humour. It was when not only was the Chairman asleep but his Clerk was also asleep. Some of us were aware that 2.30 am was approaching and that we were entitled to have half an hour for a bacon sandwich. It needed a great deal of movement among members of the Committee to ensure that the Clerk could remind the Chairman that it would be appropriate to suspend the sitting for half an hour. The Chairman, to his great credit, referred to the fact that the Committee had


been on automatic pilot. It appeared to many of us that it had been, because the late and much lamented Member for Tyne Bridge, Mr. Cowans, had then been speaking for many hours. I cannot remember exactly how many, but he had spoken for a considerable time.
A solution to such nonsense must be found. The Procedure Committee has come up with a proposal. What have the Government to lose or fear from an experiment to try to improve matters? The Government recognise that there is a problem. In the minutes of evidence, at question 96 on page 37, when referring to the Telecommunications Bill, my right hon. Friend said:
I think it is a very good case where an earlier guillotine could have brought about a better consideration of the legislation, and in my view certainly a more civilised one.
My right hon. Friend referred today to turgid pre-timetabled debates. He said that he seeks reform through the flexibility of present procedures. In that case, why has he not used the opportunity presented by the Gas Bill this Session to experiment and tried to introduce a guillotine motion rather earlier than otherwise would have been done?

Mr. Biffen: Earlier than what?

Mr. Chope: As I understood from what my right hon. Friend said in evidence, there is nothing to stop the Government proposing a guillotine motion at an earlier stage.

Mr. Biffen: If my hon. Friend had acquainted himself with the Hansard report of the transactions on the proposing of the guillotine motion on the Gas Bill, he would find that I made the point that it was introduced earlier than one might have expected from earlier precedents.

Mr. Chope: I accept what my right hon. Friend says. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but, having spoken to some of my hon. Friends who did serve on the Committee, I have been told that even so there was a similar farce to that which I described on the Rates Bill in that much time was wasted. More time could have been spent discussing the contentious clauses in detail if the guillotine had been introduced even earlier.
I hope that my hon. Friends will support the amendment because if it is not passed, as other hon. Members who have more experience than me have said, it may be decades before any proposal comes before the House again for similar debate.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I believe that the House is, on the whole, best served by consensus on the part of a Select Committee which it appoints to advise it. Therefore, I believe that more attention should be given to those exceptional cases where Members who have addressed their minds in the Committee to the matters submitted to them have found it impossible, despite their sense of obligation, to arrive at a consensus.
The timetabling of Bills was one of those issues. It was an issue on which the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and I found ourselves unable to accept the principle of the recommendation which forms the substance of the amendment of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). It is very easy to ridicule and there is very much that is ridiculous about the procedure of the House in Committee—the manner in which it disposes

of its time, the fact that in Committee apparently an inordinate amount of time is spent on the early clauses of a Bill—although they are often the more important—and less upon the remainder. It is ridiculous that the Government's desire to make progress often condemns the major part of the Committee to silence. All those and other matters of common observation are perfectly true and incontestable, but it is a mistake to assume that for all such inconveniences there is a remedy by way of Standing Order.
Many procedures of the House are indispensable for the purpose of controlling and criticising Government but which, nevertheless, expose the House to inadequacies and inconveniences. However, it does not follow from those inadequacies and inconveniencies that they can wisely be removed by Standing Order. That idea is akin to the delusion that all the inadequacies and difficulties of the human condition can be removed by legislation. Nothing can give more power to a Government or inspire a Government with less interest in the views of hon. Members than to know in advance that, when they have gained the Second Reading of a Bill, by a definite date that Bill will be out of Committee and by a definite date it will reach the statute book. To have the map of the Session laid out before them like a chart, controlled if necessary by a Committee on which they are in the majority, is exactly that paradise to which Governments look forward. [Interruption.] I am aware that they can pass a guillotine motion.
From the swan song of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), if it was the swan song, we heard how much he looked forward to a future Labour Government who could force through their programme and have the advantage of timetabling Committees and other procedures of the House.
There is only one way in which the two opposite requirements of the House —that the Queen's Government must be carried on and that the Government must be exposed to criticism —can be reconciled, and that is by means of the device of the open end. No open ends are entirely open, of course: the reference which has been made to the guillotine device is a reminder of that. Under a certain penalty, a penalty which appears to have diminished in severity in recent years, the Government can come to the House—and they must come to the House —in order to secure the curtailment of the proceedings. Not that by doing so they free themselves from many of the disadvantages of the Committee procedure without a guillotine. When a guillotine has been imposed, it still happens. Just as many clauses are jumped in each of the sections as would have been omitted in an uncontrolled Committee stage. Under a guillotine, clauses on which many hon. Members might have a special competence or a special constituency reason for wishing to contribute frequently are not debated.
Therefore, the House should not disarm itself of the great power which it has, however limited from time to time, of bringing pressure to bear upon Government and of inducing Government to talk to their opponents, supporters and all and sundry. It is the shortage of time which makes Governments talk.

Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the fact that the argument about pressure of time is at its weakest when matters are safely tucked away in


Committee and that, even if the proposals are carried out, there are many other affairs of the House to which the argument about pressure of time can be directed?

Mr. Powell: The Minister responsible for the Bill wants to get it through and the Government of whose programme the Bill is a part want to get their programme through because they are constantly being threatened by new demands for legislation, some of them necessary, and some of them, in the view of others, illegitimate. Therefore, time is always of the essence for Government. Time is the weapon which Governments most fear when it may be used against them. The undoubted inconvenience which hon. Members suffer in the service of the House, with all its imperfections, ought not to persuade the House to disarm itself, formally or automatically, of the use of the instrument of time in the post Second Reading stages of a Bill.
I now come to the other matter on which, although there was no dissent in the report of the Select Committee, there was, nevertheless, a feeling of dissatisfaction within the Committee —the proposal that the experiment with 10-minute speeches should be continued for another Session. Had the proposal been that the 10-minute rule should become a permanent Standing Order of the House, the Committee would not have been unanimous. Indeed, it was a sense that further experience might lead hon. Members to the same conclusion held by many members of the Committee that induced those who would otherwise have been dissentient to go along with the notion that the experiment might justifiably be renewed for another Session.
The Committee found it impossible to establish and was doubtful about the proposition that the 10-minute rule, in the debates in which it was applied, resulted in more hon. Members being able to speak than would otherwise have been the case. Sitting through the concluding stages of major debates when there is pressure on the time of the House and observing how, in the last hour or so, not just 10-minute speeches but speeches of seven, five and three minutes are fitted in, one must be doubtful whether the stately progression of 10-minute speeches for two hours between 6 and 8 o'clock or 7 and 9 o'clock would increase the total number of hon. Members who could contribute.
Dare I insert a query? It has not been voiced and perhaps it is dangerous to voice it. Is it desirable that the maximum numerical toll of Members should contribute to a debate? As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) reminded the House, sÓme of the most important matters which hon. Members have sought to bring to our attention at untimely parts of the parliamentary day have required and used many more than 10 minutes. There is a constraint and the internal discipline of public opinion in the House acting on hon. Members which is the only safe and reliable limitation on the length of our speeches. Indeed, there is a sort of analogy between the function of an open end for time in the business of the House and the right of an hon. Member, once called, to occupy the Floor until he has bored the House to his satisfaction. That is the ultimate safeguard of the individual hon. Member's right to take the opportunity which has been accorded to him. We should require much

more justification than we have yet had for supposing that the advantages of the 10-minute rule outweigh the disadvantages.
I should like to refer briefly to two minor matters connected with the motion. One has not so far been mentioned. It arises in an amendment to the motion on Special Standing Committees. As the motion stands, it would enable a Minister, by a motion which is to be put forthwith, to alter the 28-day period for Special Standing Committees. I know how open-minded the Leader of the House is on these matters. Indeed, he has proven today his status as a House of Commons man by his stance on the major issue. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that where a business motion alters, for a specific purpose, a time limit which is in the Standing Orders of the House, it is our custom that it is debatable. If the Government say, "This once for this purpose we should alter this limitation in the Standing Orders," they should have the opportunity of giving reasons and of listening to arguments. I hope that on consideration the right hon. Gentleman will be persuaded that, as with other business motions, it should not be necessary for the motion mentioned in paragraph 4 of motion 4 to be put forthwith.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as being open-minded about the elimination of the word "written" from motion 11. The distinction which he sought to draw between the nature and purposes of oral questions and written questions cannot be a justification for treating those questions differently, if they are to be swept out of existence by a Session being broken. There have been one or two other observations upon that point during the debate, and I hope that he will find it possible to concur with what was the considered and unanimous advice of the Select Committee, which debated the question whether only written questions should be concerned, and decided that it was wiser that the new Standing Order, if it is made, should apply to both.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Part of the price that I pay for representing my constituency is that I am frequently compared with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), to my disadvantage. As I listened to him, I reflected that I shall never have the compendious knowledge and passionate interest in procedure that he has, but also that for all the assertions made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that they have a great knowledge and passionate interest in procedure, the House rarely debates it. That is why I doubt whether, if a proposal were introduced on an experimental or interim basis, it would be easy to change the existing procedure. For that reason, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about experiments.
Most of all, we should recognise that it is extremely difficult for a new Parliament to change the procedure because it is seen to be a way of rigging the new Parliament in such a way as to give yet further impetus to the electorate's decision. I looked with care through the names of the 150 hon. Members who signed the first amendment. While it is true that not all the right hon. and hon. Members came to the House after 1979, a high proportion did. Since the mid-1960s we have seen in particular the rise of presidential politics. To a great extent, a Member of Parliament, especially in this Parliament, is elected, not to be a vigorous Back-Bench Member, whether by choice or chance, but to support his party and leader. The right


hon. and hon. Members reflect their belief that they are here to support their leader and party. They also reflect the sheer numbers of Tory Members who were elected in 1979 and, to a greater extent, in 1983, and the difficulty of finding an issue on which the Government can be defeated.
We do not want to change our procedure so that a different Parliament with different perceptions and priorities is stuck with procedures which may be appropriate to a presidential Parliament, to which hon. Members are not elected to scrutinise the Government or legislation as carefully as may have been done in previous Parliaments. Therefore, I entirely agree with the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if we agree to these proposals for automatic timetabling, we on the Back Benches would give the Executive a greater power than has been given to it previously. That would be dangerous, because it would fetter the choice of the people, which is decided by their vote, and the mysterious consequences that their collective vote has. To some extent it is hampered by the procedures of the House. If, in a future Parliament, the mysterious consequence of the collective vote is that we have a Government who believe, not in radical action and a presidential style, but in carrying on the Queen's business quietly, with more consensus, and perhaps even more deference to the House, we have procedures for them. The checks and balances continue to exist. I have nothing new or interesting to say about the proposals for automatic timetabling, except that I agree with my right hon. Friend and with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
There is a proposal for a Legislative Business Committee, which is to be independent. For a short period I was rather oddly positioned in the Whips Office, and I saw something of the way in which it operated. The great advantage of the House in relation to the Whips Offices is that Whips are wrongly credited with having great power and influence, and they are understandably disliked. Except for occasional members of the Whips Offices, they remain silent, and do not even leak.
It is precisely because Whips Offices are so obviously partisan and disliked that they have to behave better than Committees which are allegedly independent. Most of all, they operate continuously. There can be no question of swinging one over and humiliating the Whips Office on the other side. One would know that if one had done a chap last week, he would return the compliment the next week. Therefore, it is important that the broad consensus of the House of Commons is adhered to. We must adhere to the broad, changing consensus of what is decent, honourable and fair within the constraints of fierce party battle.
It is difficult to decide exactly what those conventions are, but, surprisingly enough, they seem to be well understood by the usual channels. The proposals which give great power to the allegedly independent Committee will be to the disadvantage of the House of Commons. The allegedly independent Committee will be governed by the majority — by the Government. It will have a Government majority on it. Most important, it will not have to do business with the Opposition Whips next week and will, from time to time, behave badly. It will no doubt behave like that for partisan reasons, sometimes for reasons of patronage, and sometimes for reasons of friendship. However, it will behave badly.
I suggest that even if the House decides — in my opinion quite wrongly—to have automatic timetabling, the much abused, much hated, but nevertheless effective system of the usual channels ought to be kept.

Mr. John McWilliam: I join the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his kindness and tolerance in chairing the Select Committee on Procedure and for allowing hon. Members like me, who have a distinct minority view on that Committee, to have if anything more than our fair share of say in the Committee's deliberations. The Committee is very hard working.
It is rare for me to disagree with a Select Committee of which I am a member. I have never before voted against reporting a Select Committee's findings to the House. However, I found the proposals on timetabling so unacceptable that, like the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), I felt that I had no choice but to vote against them.
I cannot support the recommendation in the fourth motion about Special Standing Committees. The evidence to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred, and the other evidence that exists, is overwhelmingly in favour of the Special Standing Committees.
I ask hon. Members to examine the amendment to the recommendation in the second motion about committal. It is odd to limit committal to Special Standing Committees to a Minister of the Crown. If the Special Standing Committees were used more frequently, and on a broader range of Bills, many of the problems which hon. Members who support the first amendment are facing would be solved.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the statement by the Solicitor-General on what is now the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. I do not want to return to that, save to say that I believe that the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would be true for a large number of Bills.
Referral to Special Standing Committees would rake account of more than just the point made by the hon. Member for Honiton. It is illogical to argue that the enforced timetabling and consideration of all the clauses of a Bill some of which, as all hon. Members know, are inconsequential, would provide for either better understanding of the Bill or a realisation by Ministers sponsoring the Bill that there was something fundamentally wrong with it. We would, as usual, be in opposition politics.
Consideration by a Special Standing Committee, in which detailed evidence could be taken from the people affected, could have a profound effect on Ministers, in a way which my making a speech would not have, even if I or other hon. Members were subsequently proved to be right.
I too, would like to enter the "Guinness Book of Records". As a Member sponsored by the National Communications Union, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on being elected as my general secretary. He spoke an hour ago, and I should like to be the first to disagree with him. His conclusions about the timetabling of all Bills and the use of a Legislative Business Committee are utterly wrong. If Conservative Members had listened to my hon.


Friend's arguments they would all vote against the recommendation, because my hon. Friend made strong arguments against it.
I believe that the history of successive Governments in relation to the rights and privileges of hon. Members is not a good one. Our rights and privileges have been seriously eroded over the years. If we introduce a Legislative Business Committee, our rights and privileges will be further eroded. We have not considered properly the kind of animal that we wish to create. The Committee would not be the kind of flexible body that the hon. Member for Honiton would have us believe. For example, the recommendation in paragraph 36 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure states that the Committee should consist of senior Back-Bench Members to be elected by a Committee of Selection without the interference of the Whips. If hon. Members believe that, they will believe anything. We all know, and I am a Whip myself, what happens in the Committee of Selection. We should not be naive at the start.
We are also asked to believe that, as paragraph 39 of the Select Committee on Procedure states:
Any system of time-tabling needs to preserve a measure of flexibility to cope with unexpected developments during the progress of a Bill.
That is all very well, but paragraph 39 continues:
Such a request should only be made if entirely new factors arose during a bill's progress—factors not known when the maximum number of hours was set.
Again that is all very well, but what happens if a mistake has been made? What happens if we have it wrong and the members of the Legislative Business Committee do not understand the full impact of some of the Bill's clauses?
One of two things would then happen. Either a Committee would be horribly strapped for time and so be unable to carry out the kind of investigation which the hon. Member for Honiton suggested, or it would be sitting around wondering what to do next and inventing amendments. That is the situation that could arise, and it is another problem which the Legislative Business Committee could cause.
The Americans invented such an animal about 150 years ago. Its original purpose was to do just what the hon. Member for Honiton suggested it ought to do. It has developed in such a way that the Executive now comes to the Committee as a supplicant. The Committee has a life of its own, and has taken to itself prerogatives which used to exist on the Floor of the House of Representatives. That could happen if a similar Committee were appointed here.
I invite hon. Members to vote against the first recommendation. If Conservative Members are worried about Committees sitting too late at night, I remind them that the Chairmen of Standing Committees will not accept a closure motion from a member of the Opposition. They will accept a closure motion only from a Minister. Government Members have the solution in their own hands. If they walk out of the Committee, I assure them that Opposition Members will follow, rendering the Committee inquorate, and that will sort out the Whip. It is not the Opposition but the Government who run Committees all night.
There is a misconception that the only weapon that the Opposition have is time. That is not true. The only weapon that the Opposition have is uncertainty, and the function of that is time. We must understand that.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: rose——

Mr. McWilliam: I shall not give way, because other hon. Members wish to speak, and I wish to conclude my speech.
If the Opposition can keep uncertainty, the Government cannot put too much legislation through the House, because they cannot map their progress, as the right hon. Member for South Down said. If the Opposition lose that uncertainty, we shall be faced with more legislation, more pressure, more congestion and fewer rights for Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The Select Committee, which was charged with looking at all public Bill procedures and making recommendations to the House, did not seek, nor does it claim to have achieved in its recommendations, perfection. It sought improvement, and that is what its recommendations will achieve. It did not arrive at them quickly. Its Chairman allowed full debate — not just one observation from each of the Committee members — and the subject to be worked over until some consensus or irrevocable dissent had been arrived at.
I cannot share the view of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that he should possess a veto on the recommendation of the Select Committee.
The major Committee recommendation before the House is one that will avoid useless wastage of time and improve the scrutiny of legislation. That is its objective, and that it will secure more perfectly than the present arrangement. From all sections of the House, appeals to the Committee have come, both before it was seized of this subject and during discussions, to grasp the nettle. Therefore, I am glad that the Government have given prime time to debate this matter. I am less happy at the pressure that is being put on Ministers and others to vote, not on the merit of the argument, but according to the wishes of the Government.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that he was unaware that we were also debating the "take note" motion. We are debating "take note" of the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure. As a matter of interest, I point out that there are precedents for the House considering the passage of a "take note" motion to be an authority—not just an approval. I have had correspondence with the Accountant of the Hòuse, which went to Mr. Speaker Thomas, over what authority, if any, there was for paying the expenses of Select Committees when they were within the United Kingdom taking evidence but outside the Palace of Westminster. The answer was a "take note" motion on a report of a Select Committee, not on a motion to approve.
Therefore, it is highly relevant to know, on the "take note" motion, what the views of the two Front Benches are—the Opposition Front Bench refused to give its view—on paragraph 6 of the first report. That quite clearly recommends against the existing practice—it is not a Standing Order—whereby successive Speakers have let it be understood that they disapproved strongly of a


Standing Order No. 10 application being raised on a matter that had already been the subject, by the same Member, but only by the same Member, of a private notice question.
This is absurd, as the Select Committee agreed unanimously, for two reasons. First, the rules under which a private notice question is granted are not the same as the rules governing a Standing Order No. 10 application. Secondly, that interdiction does not apply to any of the other 649 Members, but only to the Member who has raised a private notice question application. That in itself is absurd.
The Committee also looked at the injustices that can arise as a result of accusations being made against a person or body exterior to the House by a Standing Order No. 10 application, which cannot be answered because the procedures do not give any opportunity to answer them. Therefore, there is a lot to be said for a freer granting of a private notice question, where the subject can be responded to by other hon. Members, within the limitations of Mr. Speaker's discretion. That is not the case in the constraints of an application under Standing Order No. 10, to which, however unbased the charges made, there can be no reply. Even if hon. Members, on another occasion, engineer the occasion for a reply, it will never get the same publicity as the original application. That is why, in paragraph 6 of the first report, that specific recommendation was made.
Therefore, it is unfortunate that, by the Government not tabling this as a specific motion, the only way in which we can discover whether Mr. Speaker will be guided by the Select Committee on the matter is if he is good enough to make his own determination known, either of his own volition, or in response to a point of order, made, one would hope, with reasonable notice to him. Other points have been made so well that I do not wish to detain the House on them. I merely wished to make the one point, to which insufficient attention has been paid.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I was greatly relieved to hear the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) introduce a note of reality into the debate, after the romantic, not to say sentimental, speeches that we heard from the Government and Opposition Front Benches. I do not know whether the fact that their duties some time ago relieved them of having to sit in a Committee for hours on end has resulted in their memory being slightly dimmed, but they were not talking about the world that I know in those Committee rooms. I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is the greatest romantic of us all, that the film industry has moved on a little since the days of Buster Keaton and some of us think that it might be a good thing if the House of Commons did as well.
The most unfortunate thing about the speech made by the Leader of the House was that he dealt at great length with one of the elements in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Honiton and left out the other. Taking the two together is vital. Either one on its own would swing the balance of advantage either to the Government or to the Opposition, but the two together keep the balance where it is, while making the House of Commons a great deal more efficient and, more importantly, providing a more civilised and healthy way of life for those who have to work here. Nobody can pretend that our system is conducive to good health. It is ridiculous that an hon.

Member can sit all night in Committee. The hon. Member for Honiton was right to say that people outside think that we are mad. Unfortunately, I can find little evidence to prove that we are not.
There was a time when Oppositions would regard it as a great victory if they were able to slow down the progress of a Bill to the point where the Government had to come to the House for a guillotine motion. Ministers would come quite shamefacedly to ask the House to give them a timetable because they had been in Committee for 90 hours and had reached only clause 1. Those days have gone. Ministers are no longer embarrassed when they come along for a guillotine; it is just a matter of course.
The idea that something is achieved by the Opposition by holding a Bill up as long as they can to bring about a guillotine is nonsense because nothing is won by that. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has said, Ministers know from the word go their target date for getting a Bill out of Committee. Everybody knows that and we should not pretend that the situation is any different. Because Ministers are prepared to go for a guillotine if necessary, they sit back quite happily in the Standing Committee as Opposition Members flog themselves to death in the middle of the night. Meanwhile Government supporters go out on a rota basis to have a sleep in the room next door.
The only people suffering are the poor old Chairmen, and I hope hon. Members will spare a thought for the Chairmen, because, despite what we heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) about one of my hon. Friends who apparently dozed off a little, the fact is that we are supposed to sit there and listen to people like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mr. Golding) speaking interminably. We are supposed to listen to every word to make sure that nobody is out of order.

Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the result of that, as happened recently on the Telecommunications Bill, is that we end up without the legislation being properly considered? As a result of that, it all goes through without consideration until it reaches the Upper House.

Mr. Crowther: I think that point has already been made. I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme spoke about his marathon performance that brought him worldwide fame. I was about to mention it anyway. The thing that is remembered about that speech, the big talking point, is that he spoke for 11¼ hours, but does anybody remember what he said? My hon. Friend remembers but nobody else does. Nobody remembered even the next day. What mattered was that it had taken 11¼ hours to say it. That demonstrates the farcical nature of our present proceedings.
It is in the interests of the Opposition as well as the Government to have a timetable clearly laid out at the beginning so that Opposition Members can work out what amount of time to allocate to each clause. That in itself would give an advantage to the Government, as hon. Members have said. But we must balance against that the time limit on the sittings. I agree with the recommendation by the Select Committee about 10 o'clock, but whatever it is, a time limit on sittings would prevent the Government using all their allocated hours quickly by keeping the Committee there all night on Tuesday and all night on


Thursday and all night the next week and then saying, "My goodness, we have only been there a fortnight but we have got all the hours in." A time limit on sittings would prevent that and these two proposals taken together—that is the essential qualification—would provide us with a far more sensible way of carrying on our business.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I understand the Leader of the House will seek to rise at 14 minutes past 7 because the debate ends at 20 past 7.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). He injected a refreshing element of common sense into the debate and I agree with much of what he said. This is a powerfully interesting debate and while listening to it, I could not help reflecting that hon. Members approach power in much the same way as artists approach colour. Van Gogh saw it in bold and brilliant strokes and his pictures are at least discernible. Canaletto had to have it in the greatest possible detail—that is my preference—and Salvador Dali used his colour in such a way that the only thing discernible is chaos. Listening to the debate, it seemed to me that at times there was a preference for chaos. We are used to that.
I contribute to the debate with a considerable sense of humility, because I have never regarded myself in any sense, and certainly not in the sense of two of the right hon. Members who have spoken, as an expert on procedure. It may sound paradoxical but I have a great and profound respect for this place and a somewhat less and less profound respect for its procedure. In some senses, it has been damaging to our democracy.
I agree with both the right hon. Members on one matter, and it is about the limitation of speeches to 10 minutes. If we applied that rule rigidly Burke, Fox, Pitt, Disraeli, Gladstone and right hon. Members presently in the Chamber would never have spoken or developed their careers as they have done. The rigid application of a 10 minute rule is particularly unfair to those hon. and right hon. Members who speak rarely in the House, and perhaps do so quite deliberately, and those who speak regularly on every conceivable occasion. Perhaps the self-limiting rule should apply much more rigorously to the latter than it does to the former.
The topic I want to raise in this debate can be summarised in two sentences of the report. They are critical and of the greatest importance. The first sentence is on page xxiii, and I agree with every word. It says about the House:
Present practices do its prestige a profound disservice".
That is true, and it would be found to be true if we conducted an opinion poll among our constituents or even among those who follow the affairs of the House in the greatest detail. Alas and alack, they are few in number. Whatever we may say to justify it, our general reputation is that our procedure is archaic and damaging, and does not serve democracy. That is why I strongly support what my hon Friend has done in the work of this Committee.
The second sentence is equally important. In the first sentence of paragraph 45 the Committee recommends:

proceedings in standing committees should not be allowed to continue beyond 10 pm.
I strongly endorse that. My experience in this House does not compare with that of many right hon. Members. I have been here for some 21 years, 10 years in opposition and 11 years—I was about to say in government—out of government. There is a vital distinction and one which can be described by those who have experienced it as soul-searing, perhaps. There are those who would have taken part in this debate had they been alive. They are not here, they are dead. I can give two examples: David Webster on the Government side of the House and Stephen Swingler on the Opposition side. I am convinced those two men lost their lives because of this procedure. However, they are not here and their names are not recorded on any tablets of stone or on any vellum parchment. They contributed their lives to a procedure that is archaic and totally indefensible.
I regret that the Government are using the method they are to defend this procedure which, as the years have gone by, has revealed itself increasingly to successive generations of hon. Members as profoundly indefensible. I so call it, and I so describe it. No one who looks at the operations of this place, even in the context of democracy and in the context that we are here to check the Executive, can possibly argue that this must go on basically unchanged or that this important report should not be accepted in any sense. If we ask ourselves the question: has it worked, has it produced the most successful western democracy since the end of the second world war, the answer must be no. If we ask: has it produced what one can describe as the most successful economy since the end of the second world war under successive Governments, again the answer must be no. Has it produced the most stable, civil society in the Western world? Perhaps there alone the answer can be yes, but we cannot say it is due to the procedures of this House. It is due to far more basic and fundamental democratic attributes of which we are rightly and justly proud.
If we want to go forward to a state where we can defend the future of this House, the future of our democracy and the relevance of our procedures here and elsewhere to the kind of problems that our society is facing, we shall not do it by keeping people, who have worn themselves out throughout the day and who have been here since possibly nine in the morning, until two or three o'clock the following morning, and then seriously expect that their contribution to the discussion will be sensible, intelligent and relevant. No one can pretend it is and the country does not think it is. Therefore I support what my hon. Friend has proposed, with all the conviction that I can command.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate the Select Committee on its work and on its report, and I support the amendment that has been tabled to try to ensure some sanity in the pattern of work in Standing Committees and in our handling of legislation. I also thank the Committee for giving us an opportunity to give evidence and, in giving that evidence, to draw attention to the fact that more than 70 per cent. of hon. Members who responded to a questionnaire—that was more than half the number of hon. Members in the Houe—said that they wanted a change in this vital area.
I entered the House 12 years ago tomorrow. Other hon. Members have had much more experience than I have, but


during that time I have served on the Committees considering the Industry Bill and the Telecommunications Bill and I have seen how time can be wasted. I accept that using time can sometimes hold the Government back, but the practice has had minimal success over the years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on his appointment, but I must tell him that even if the Opposition had not achieved such success in Committee the Telecommunications Bill would not have gone through because of the election in May. Even in that instance, the case is not proven.
I am in a different position from almost all hon. Members in that I am always likely to be in opposition, as are my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party. However, we still believe that it makes much more sense to get coherent legislation out of Committees instead of spending so many hours in Committee day and night to no purpose whatever. If we used our time constructively, we would have much better legislation than we do now. There is no earthly justification for spending hour after hour in Committee, as we do on many Bills.
I regret the fact that the Government believe it necessary to put pressure on the so-called payroll vote to be present here tonight. May I suggest that the real vote in a few minutes' time will be the Back Bench vote, and the votes of the payroll should be disregarded in trying to establish the will of the House.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that it is a mistake to assume that the remedy for all the weaknesses, shortcomings and failings in the legislative process lies in Standing Orders. Perfection would be to have no Standing Orders, as is the case in another place, but I suppose that that would be too near to paradise for this House. We had to develop Standing Orders over the years to cope with our procedure. Standing Orders are the framework within which we operate, but there is no reason why the framework should not be renewed and redesigned in the light of circumstances. The proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure, especially the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), are aimed at modernising our procedure just a little.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the proposals were radical. If he believes that, he is being a little unambitious. I regard them as moderate, mild, timely and full of good sense. Some of the speeches that we heard today about the implied perfection of our present procedures almost force me into despair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton argued his case with great dexterity. I repeat what he said about why the recommendations are before the House. The Procedure Committee was specifically instructed to examine the time spent on legislation in Committee because Members of Parliament and the outside world were dissatisfied with the way in which we conduct our business. The proposals contained in the report and my hon. Friend's amendment will go some small way towards improving matters.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell me which rule in "Erskine May" says that in a three-hour debate on a procedure motion we must have eight speeches from hon. Members who served

on the Select Committee and four speeches from Privy Councillors? Surely this was an opportunity to listen to other Back-Bench Members, not to Members who sat on the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was the only Member who wished to speak who was not called.

Mr. Biffen: I do not wish to engage in further controversy, least of all upon the issue of timetabling, which has occupied so much of this evening's debate. However, I shall make one or two comments in response to specific points that were put to me on other issues.
May I first respond to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) regarding his amendment to the motion on Special Standing Committees. I am happy to accept his amendment.
In that context, may I also refer to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on committal, which raises much more substantial points. I repeat the Government's preference that they should control commital to Special Standing Committees, partly because the convention has arisen that the Special Standing Committee procedure should apply to Bills that raise substantial issues not of acute party controversy. Therefore, one will appreciate that there is a real interest in the Government's determining which Bills should come within that category.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about questions that lapse because of an overrun in business. The Government's view—it is shared more widely—is that written answers merit reinstatement, which is a fairly straightforward procedure. However, if oral questions were reinstated as written questions, it would prevent those hon. Members who had tabled them as oral questions from putting them down again as oral questions for six months. It was thought that, on the whole, this would put those hon. Members at a disadvantage. That was the basis on which we made our judgment.
Finally, on a personal note, I feel obliged to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), whose reference to me as a latter-day Buster Keaton of the Treasury Bench leads me to believe that, unlike me, he is old enough to have seen those films in the 1930s and is showing the social disposition which I do not have of watching the repeats at weekends. Therefore, I am unable to judge the implied compliment or otherwise, but I console myself with the fact that at least I am not described as the Boris Karloff of Tory monetarism.

Amendment proposed to the proposed motion in line 4, at end add
'; approves in principle the holding of an experiment implementing, during the next session of Parliament, recommendations Nos. 9 to 16 contained in the Committee's Second Report relating to timetabling of Government bills and to the time of rising of standing committees; and believes that the Committee should monitor the operation of such an experiment.'.—[Sir Peter Emery.]

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 231.

Division No. 86]
[7.20 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Ashdown, Paddy
Benyon, William


Ashton, Joe
Best, Keith


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bidwell, Sydney






Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Litherland, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McCrindle, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Madel, David


Brinton, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Malcolm
Marlow, Antony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buck, Sir Antony
Meadowcroft, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Merchant, Piers


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Michie, William


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Miscampbell, Norman


Cartwright, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Cash, William
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Chapman, Sydney
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Chope, Christopher
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Murphy, Christopher


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Nelson, Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Normanton, Tom


Coombs, Simon
O'Brien, William


Cormack, Patrick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Osborn, Sir John


Crowther, Stan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Parris, Matthew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Portillo, Michael


Dover, Den
Powley, John


Dykes, Hugh
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Eastham, Ken
Raffan, Keith


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Randall, Stuart


Emery, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Evennett, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rogers, Allan


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fletcher, Alexander
Rost, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Forrester, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forth, Eric
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Freud, Clement
Shersby, Michael


Gale, Roger
Silvester, Fred


Galley, Roy
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Spencer, Derek


Golding, John
Squire, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hannam, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Harvey, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hayes, J.
Wainwright, R.


Heddle, John
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Hind, Kenneth
Wallace, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Waller, Gary


Hordern, Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Howells, Geraint
Watts, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Whitfield, John


Jackson, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Wilson, Gordon


Kennedy, Charles
Winterton, Mrs Ann


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Wolfson, Mark


Kirkwood, Archy
Wood, Timothy


Knox, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Latham, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Lawler, Geoffrey



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Lightbown, David
Mr. Roger Sims.





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Grist, Ian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Ancram, Michael
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hardy, Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Baldry, Tony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Barnett, Guy
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Batiste, Spencer
Hayward, Robert


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Henderson, Barry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Blackburn, John
Hirst, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bottomley, Peter
Home Robertson, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howard, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Boyes, Roland
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Bright, Graham
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunter, Andrew


Bruinvels, Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Janner, Hon Greville


Budgen, Nick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Butcher, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Key, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lang, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Clarke, Thomas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clay, Robert
Leighton, Ronald


Clelland, David Gordon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Lilley, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lord, Michael


Cope, John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Corbett, Robin
Lyell, Nicholas


Couchman, James
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Craigen, J. M.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Deakins, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dewar, Donald
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dorrell, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Madden, Max


Dubs, Alfred
Major, John


Dunn, Robert
Malone, Gerald


Eadie, Alex
Marek, Dr John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Harry
Mather, Carol


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Farr, Sir John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Meacher, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellor, David


Foster, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foulkes, George
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Garrett, W. E.
Moore, Rt Hon John


George, Bruce
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moynihan, Hon C.


Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Gorst, John
Needham, Richard






Nellist, David
Scott, Nicholas


Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Newton, Tony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Nicholls, Patrick
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Norris, Steven
Skinner, Dennis


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Spearing, Nigel


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Stern, Michael


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Pollock, Alexander
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Sumberg, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waddington, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rooker, J. W.
Walden, George


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Richard
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

That Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of bills) be amended, as follows: Line 8, after 'committee', insert 'or to a special standing committee'; Line 11, after 'Member', insert `(except a motion to commit a bill to a special standing committee, which may be made only by a Minister of the Crown)'. —[Mr. Biffen.]

Amendment proposed to the Question, to leave out lines 3 and 4—[Sir Peter Emery.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes, 158.

Division No. 87]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alton, David
Chope, Christopher


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Thomas


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Robert


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clelland, David Gordon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnett, Guy
Cockeram, Eric


Barron, Kevin
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corbett, Robin


Benyon, William
Cormack, Patrick


Best, Keith
Craigen, J. M.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Crowther, Stan


Blackburn, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brinton, Tim
Dixon, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm
Dormand, Jack


Buck, Sir Antony
Dover, Den


Caborn, Richard
Dubs, Alfred


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Dykes, Hugh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Emery, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Evennett, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Cartwright, John
Fatchett, Derek



Field, Frank (Birkenhead)



Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)





Wareing, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Welsh, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wheeler, John



Whitney, Raymond
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Winnick, David
Mr. Tony Durant.


Young, David (Bolton SE)





Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forrester, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Foster, Derek
Litherland, Robert


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Freud, Clement
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Galley, Roy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert


George, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Madel, David


Golding, John
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Marlow, Antony


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Maxton, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Meacher, Michael


Harvey, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Michie, William


Haynes, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Hind, Kenneth
Miscampbell, Norman


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Home Robertson, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Murphy, Christopher


Howells, Geraint
Nellist, David


Hoyle, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Normanton, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Janner, Hon Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Johnston, Sir Russell
Parris, Matthew


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie


Kennedy, Charles
Pike, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Portillo, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Knox, David
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Powley, John



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg






Radice, Giles
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raffan, Keith
Wainwright, R.


Randall, Stuart
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rathbone, Tim
Wallace, James


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waller, Gary


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, J. W.
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Warren, Kenneth


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Welsh, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Whitfield, John


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Silvester, Fred
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wilson, Gordon


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spearing, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Derek
Wood, Timothy


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Roger Sims.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, John


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Robert


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodlad, Alastair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bruinvels, Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Budgen, Nick
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hirst, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)




That—


(1) A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed shall have power during a period not exceeding 28 days (excluding periods when the House is adjourned for more than two days) from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records, and, for this purpose, to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than three hours each. At not more than three sittings oral evidence may be given and, unless the committee otherwise orders, all such evidence shall be given in public. Oral evidence shall be printed in the Official Report of the committee's debates together with such written evidence as the committee may order to be so printed.


(2) For the sittings referred to in paragraph (1) of this order, and nothwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 64 (Chairmen of standing committees), Mr. Speaker may appoint any Member other than a Minister of the Crown as chairman of a special standing committee.


(3) Except as provided in the foregoing paragraphs, the standings orders relating to standing committees and Standing Orders No. 84 (Withdrawal of documents before select committees), No. 88 (Entry of questions asked), No. 93 (Witnesses and evidence (select committees)) and No. 94 (Publication of evidence (select committees)) shall apply to any special standing committee.





Hunter, Andrew
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Pollock, Alexander


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Key, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stern, Michael


Major, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Marland, Paul
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mather, Carol
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Trippier, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Neale, Gerrard
Ward, John


Needham, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Neubert, Michael
Wheeler, John


Newton, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Norris, Steven
Younger, Rt Hon George


Osborn, Sir John



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions relating to Procedure, Committal of Bills, Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland, Special Standing Committees, Powers of Chair to propose Question, Majority for Closure, Procedure in Standing Committees, Closure of Debate, Third Reading, Short Speeches, Questions to Members, and Adjournment on Specific and Important Matter that should have Urgent Consideration, pursuant to order [21 February].

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Second, Third and Fourth Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1984–85 (House of Commons Papers Nos. 49, 396 and 623) and of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 42).

Motion made, and Question proposed,

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 70 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland) be amended by inserting, after the word `Committee' in lines 32 and 41, the words `(or a special standing committee)'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

(4) The question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown to extend the period of 28 days mentioned in paragraph (1) of this order may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business and shall be put forthwith.


That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Amendment made to the Question, in line 21, leave out "and shall be put forthwith."—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That—
(1) When a Member is in the course of making a motion or moving an amendment at any stage of proceedings on a Bill, a Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the question be now proposed', and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, the question, 'That the question be now proposed' shall be put forthwith.
(2) This order shall apply in committee only when the Chairman of Ways and Means or either Deputy Chairman is in the chair.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for closure) be amended, as follows:
Line 3, after `debate)', insert 'or for the proposal of the question under Standing Order (Powers of chair to propose question)'.—[4r. Biffen.]

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 68 (Procedure in standing committees) be amended, as follows;
Line 24, after 'debate)', insert Standing Order (Powers of chair to propose question)':
Line 27, after 'closure', insert 'or for the proposal of the question'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of debate) be amended, as follows:
Line 18, leave out paragraph (3).—[Mr. Biffen.]

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 58 (Third reading) be amended, as follows:
Line 4, leave out paragraph (2).—[Mr. Biffen.]

Motion made, and Question put,

That—
(1) For the remainder of the present Session Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate on one of the matters specified in paragraph (2) of this Order, he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock on Monday to Thursday sittings, and between half-past eleven o'clock and one o'clock on Friday sittings, to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has made such an announcement he may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.
(2) This Order shall apply to debates on:

(a) the second reading of public bills;
(b) matters selected under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) for consideration on allotted Opposition days; and
(c) motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown.—[Mr. Biffen.]

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 32.

Division No. 88]
[7.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Barnett, Guy


Ancram, Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benyon, William


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Aspinwall, Jack
Best, Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John





Blackburn, John
Gorst, John


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harvey, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayward, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hirst, Michael


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Howard, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hoyle, Douglas


Cash, William
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Thomas
Jackson, Robert


Clay, Robert
Janner, Hon Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Cockeram, Eric
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cohen, Harry
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cope, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Corbett, Robin
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lamont, Norman


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lang, Ian


Dickens, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Lawler, Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dover, Den
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dubs, Alfred
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Robert
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Evennett, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fatchett, Derek
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Malins, Humfrey


Fletcher, Alexander
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Antony


Forrester, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Mather, Carol


Foulkes, George
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Freeman, Roger
Michie, William


Galley, Roy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


George, Bruce
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Monro, Sir Hector


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)






Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas


Moynihan, Hon C.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Murphy, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Neale, Gerrard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Needham, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Nellist, David
Shersby, Michael


Neubert, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Newton, Tony
Silvester, Fred


Nicholls, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Normanton, Tom
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Norris, Steven
Spencer, Derek


Oppenheim, Phillip
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Osborn, Sir John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Ottaway, Richard
Stern, Michael


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Parris, Matthew
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pike, Peter
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Pollock, Alexander
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Raffan, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Randall, Stuart
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Welsh, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rooker, J. W.
Whitney, Raymond


Rowe, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryder, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilson, Gordon


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winnick, David





Wood, Timothy



Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Francis Maude


Younger, Rt Hon George





NOES


Alton, David
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Barron, Kevin
Marek, Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Marlow, Antony


Bruce, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cartwright, John
Moate, Roger


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
O'Neill, Martin


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Snape, Peter


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wainwright, R.


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Johnston, Sir Russell



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Robert Maclennan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 8 (Questions to Members) be amended, as follows:
Line 99, at end, add—
'(9) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which this House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the order paper for that day.'—[Mr. Biffen.]

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) be amended, as follows:
Line 4, after 'propose', insert 'in an application lasting not more than three minutes'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day — Housing (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY

`(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to carry out and publish the results of a national House Condition Survey at intervals no greater than 5 years. The field work for the first such Survey is to be commenced no later than April 1987.
(2) The development of the Survey shall be carried out by the Secretary of State in conjunction with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities which shall agree the design, survey sample size, monitoring of the field work and the format of the publication of the Survey.
(3) The Secretary of State shall agree with COSLA the appointment of an independent consultant or consultants to the Survey.
(4) The House Condition Survey shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Schedule A.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to consider amendment No. 14—New Schedule A—

'1. The HCS must be designed to provide sufficient information to test the adequacy and effectiveness of existing housing policy and legislation, and to formulate new policies and legislation where these are found to be necessary.
The information obtained by the HCS shall also be sufficient to review the adequacy of existing resource provision.
2. All information gathered by the HCS shall be published in a format which provides details both nationally and for each district and island authority.
3. The HCS shall provide information about the condition of all existing dwellings and their facilities. The dwellings shall be identified by the type of their construction, age and tenure.
It will include, inter alia, the number of dwellings in each category which:

(i) require statutory action under the Housing (Scotland) Acts;
(ii) require structural or other repairs and the extent of any such repairs necessary to provide a minimum 30-year life for the dwelling;
(iii) lack facilities (including e.g. Standard Amenities, central heating, insulation);
(iv) require improvement (including full or partial modernisation, rewiring); and
(v) fail to meet the criteria for the Tolerable Standard.
4. In addition the HCS must be carried out in such a manner as to provide an accurate assessment of the number of dwellings in each category which suffer from rising or penetrating damp or condensation.
5. The HCS shall specify the cost and other resources requirements of the work identified as necessary.
6. It shall also indicate the timescale within which the work identified should, in the professional opinion of the surveyor, be carried out.
7. The HCS shall be accompanied by such other social, household and local authority surveys as may be required to determine social and expenditure priorities.).

Mr. Dewar: I have pleasure in putting forward a simple proposition, based on common sense, which commands widespread support in Scotland. I need hardly tell the House that I expect the Minister to resist it. Our proposal is that Scotland should have a national house

condition survey, which would provide us with much information about the state of the Scottish housing stock. We should try to gather a solid and sound basis of information before we draw up our housing plans. We should assess the scale of damage and need before we plan how to meet it. It is a straightforward and admirably sensible suggestion. It is not confined to the public sector, where information can be gathered by means of check lists supplied by the local authorities. It would extend the knowledge of the Scottish Office into the more difficult private sector area, especially private sector rented and tenement accommodation. A survey would give us an accurate snapshot of the state of our housing stock, which could then be updated.
We have had a fair amount of skirmishing over the months, and I understand that the Government are opposed to a house condition survey, on the ground that it is unnecessary. They say that they already have all that they require in the information supplied by local authorities. They argue, therefore, that a national house condition survey is a luxury which we do not need and possibly cannot afford. My first answer is one that I have already given — local authorities are telling only part of the story. My second answer is that I believe that the basis on which the checklist is compiled is not as satisfactory or as accurate as a house condition survey would be.
Anyone who looks at the continuing debate on the dampness problem—that scourge of living standards in Scotland—will appreciate the point. I do not think that one can seriously dispute that the checklists compiled by local authorities seriously underestimate the scale of the dampness problem. I believe that an impartially conducted survey — "impartially" meaning an outside agency performing a specific task with training and incentives—would provide a more accurate picture of the dangers and difficulties in Scottish housing.
This is not a revolutionary proposition. Many people have supported it. A house condition survey is conducted in Northern Ireland. There have been surveys in 1974, 1979 and 1984, and it is intended to continue to update them. That is one part of the United Kingdom where the house condition survey is seen as a useful tool and is part of the continuing process of monitoring and coping with housing problems.
A house condition survey in England is undertaken by the Department of the Environment. It has provided remarkable statistics on what is happening in England, which might, if they were mirrored in Scotland, put a different complexion on the debate on housing. In 1985, looking at local authority stock alone, the survey found that there were just over 4·5 million dwelling houses, of which no fewer than 3·8 million required expenditure—84 per cent. of the total stock. This would have involved expenditure of £18·8 billion. Those are formidable figures. The Department of the Environment apparently found no insurmountable obstacles to carrying out that survey and bringing it to a successful conclusion. I cite those English figures because they suggest that a similar survey in Scotland would produce startling figures which. I hope, would do something to jerk Ministers from their present inertia and complacency about housing in Scotland.
The English survey estimated that the average cost of repair and renovation per dwelling was £4,900. There is no reason to think—I say this cautiously—that Scottish housing stock is in a significantly better state than housing stock south of the border. There may be arguments for


suggesting the opposite, but let us give it the benefit of the doubt. If one applies the average cost which was discovered south of the border to the 840,000 council houses in Scotland, note that one finds that a frighteningly substantial sum would be required merely to renovate and bring Scottish housing stock to the standard that we should expect in a civilised society. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that we need £880 million a year over five years—that figure is similar to the one arrived at by making my calculations—merely to stop a backlog from building up, and continuing deterioration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, as he appears to be by using those figures, that every unit of the council housing stock in Scotland needs that average amount spent on it? How has this come about when, in the past 15 years, 80 per cent. of council housing stock in Scotland has been either renovated or newly built?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is room for argument. When he makes that point, he makes a case for a house condition survey. If one assumed that the picture in Scotland was similar to that south of the border, one would expect about 80 per cent. of council house stock in Scotland to need that kind of work done on it, and the amount would run into the figures that I have cited. The Under-Secretary of State may say that that is alarmist, gloomy and unjustified scaremongering—no doubt all sorts of phrases may come tripping off his tongue—but I merely underline the fact that we do not really know because Ministers obstinately refuse to carry out the house condition survey for which we are asking. I am asking merely for a reasonable proposition to be put forward, based on the English experience. Of course I shall listen if the Under-Secretary of State can give me substantial reasons why the picture in Scotland should be different. I believe that we should get out of this rather sterile debate in which the hon. Gentleman takes what seems to me to be a plausible proposition and pours scorn upon it, but refuses to produce the wherewithal which would allow us to settle the argument in a civilised, sensible way.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Surely the local authorities should have been establishing for a long time what the problems are if they were serious about maintaining their housing stock. I submit that if there is a problem on the scale suggested by the hon. Gentleman, local authorities have not been doing their job properly.

Mr. Dewar: That is an interesting proposition. I think that local authorities would say that they have been trying for a long time to alert the Government to the dangers and problems and have found that it was equivalent to a dialogue with the deaf. They have been pressing for a house condition survey and for the necessary resources. I say to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), before he becomes obsessed with public sector housing stock, that I was careful to say that a house condition survey would be particularly valuable to the private sector, especially the private rented sector.

Mr. David Steel: I am relieved that the hon. Gentleman stressed that last point, because I was worried that he had concentrated

solely on local authority housing. Is he aware that the number of houses below tolerable standard in Ettrick and Lauderdale is much higher than the Scottish average? We are talking not about trivial repairs, but about housing which is still below the tolerable standard laid down years ago-for example, 7 per cent. in Galashiels and 5 per cent. in the district as a whole. These are not, in the main, council houses.

Mr. Dewar: I entirely agree. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed to the diversity of problems within housing stock in Scotland. He has reinforced my general case. I do not want to suggest that this is a council house campaign alone. I used those figures because I was comparing housing in Scotland with the English housing figures in the recent survey down south.
The Opposition take a different view of the realities and of the Government's efforts. The commentary on the public expenditure White Paper which was produced in February—this this month—gives a useful table showing expenditure in constant terms. In 1980–81 the Government committed to housing across the board — I am not making a public sector point alone—£1·005 billion, but by 1985–86 that had decreased to £589 million. In five years the Government's commitment to home improvement grants in the private sector, to support in the public sector, and to every form of housing activity had almost halved in real terms. If Conservative Members suggest, in the face of those figures, that the crisis is the fault of local government, they are allowing all common sense to be overruled by blind party loyalty.
The figures show what is happening again and again. For example, contributions per house in the public sector stock in cash terms were as follows: £255 in 1980–81 and £80 in 1985–86. We all tend to use exaggerated language in the political debate, but one is entitled to say that that is a dramatic, almost catastrophic, decline. It is reflected in housing conditions which will seriously undermine the quality of life for thousands of Scottish people. I find it pathetic—I use that word with consideration—and sad that responsible authorities in areas like Glasgow state that they believe that as a result of these cuts it is likely that about 21,000 of their public sector stock could be classed as below the tolerable standard. The authorities are not proud of that, but it is forced upon them by Government policy.
We may well be faced with major clearances equivalent to the slum clearances of the past if we do not reverse the trend. Part of the essential preparation for the attack upon the housing problem is to establish accurately the scale of the problem, and that needs the type of survey that is asked for in the new clause.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are various sorts of surveys. The schedule that he has tabled as an amendment says:
The HCS shall provide information about the condition of all existing dwellings".
I want to establish whether that survey will cover all the houses in Scotland.

Mr. Dewar: I am well known to be a reasonable man—sometimes that is held against me as a criticism. If the Minister is saying that his opposition to the new clause is based upon that consideration, I say to him with full-hearted generosity that I am prepared to withdraw the clause—on the understanding that it will reappear in


another place in another form—if he says that he will accept, in principle, a house condition survey, but wants to discuss with COSLA a sample basis. I certainly would not stand on every line of the schedule. I think that the Minister is making something of a barrack room lawyer's point on this. I hope that he will not attack the clause simply on that basis. We should concentrate on the principle and see whether we can reach some sort of agreement.
8.15 pm
Whatever the arguments, one thing is clear. A new house condition survey would reveal that the present capital expenditure allowed for housing in Scotland is totally inadequate. This year the public sector housing revenue account is £389 million. It will increase to £449 million—I am relieved at that—but it will still fail hopelessly to meet the problems that we face. I commend a house condition survey because it would do something to puncture the complacency of Ministers. They seem to imagine that they are supplying sufficient money and are meeting the demands and needs of housing in Scotland.
I have a letter which is addressed to the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate. The letter, dated 4 May 1983, is from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was then the Minister with responsibility for housing. He said:
There is already no real dispute as to the scale of this problem (dampness) and the public authorities already have the means to tackle it provided they give it high priority in their capital programmes and in housing management terms.
No one in Scotland believes that that is true.
The root of the fallacy is that we have not accurately quantified, by means of a housing survey, the amount of dampness that exists and the scale of the problem. If there was a house condition survey, we could perhaps blow away this rather feeble pretence that we could conquer dampness in Scotland if only local authorities could make minor adjustments in the ordering of their priorities. That is a deeply mistaken approach.
We want a house condition survey, and so do COSLA, Shelter and almost all local authorities, and I believe that many ordinary people in Scotland, when they listen to the argument, will want one too. The Under-Secretary of State himself once wanted such a survey. In March 1983 I spoke at a weekend school at St. Andrew's university. The Minister also addressed the school. I say openly that I do not remember the hon. Gentleman's speech on that occasion—it must have been insufficiently memorable—but fortunately other people have better memories than me. I have been told—I am satisfied that it is so—that at that weekend school the Under-Secretary of State specifically committed himself personally to support a house condition survey in Scotland.
A member of the audience, Mr. Breslin, wrote to the Minister on the 5 April 1983-1 have the correspondence-and said:
In replying to my question you stated that you would be in favour of a National Housing Condition Survey similar to that in England and Wales. I would, therefore, urge you to take all possible steps to enable such a survey to be carried out".
The Minister replied on 12 April:
Dear Mr. Breslin, Thank you for your letter about a Scottish House Condition Survey. I will be raising this with the Minister".
There is no challenge to that account. It is clear that that recollection is correct and that early in 1983 the Minister supported a housing condition survey.
I say without malice that the Minister is entitled to put his principles in his pocket when in office. No doubt that is a great temptation. This may look like good House of Commons jousting, but it is a serious matter. The point I wish to make—the Minister will not dispute it, I hope—is that when he was on the Back Benches—I accept that when one is on the Back Benches one has the luxury of making up one's own mind, and I accept also that ministerial responsibility is a serious concept—he was in favour of a house condition survey. He stated that quite openly. Now he has apparently turned tail, and I think that he owes us an explanation.

Mr. Ancram: I make no secret of the fact that at that meeting, when asked that question, I said that I was in favour of a house condition survey on the same basis as the English one. I got in touch with my hon. Friend who was then the Minister with responsibility for housing. However, I realised that a sample size based on the English survey would have covered only 900 houses in Scotland. I realised also—although the hon. Gentleman does not realise this—that that would give no information of any sort which we did not already possess. For that reason, I began to ask what a national house condition survey could achieve.

Mr. Dewar: That is an extraordinarily implausible explanation and performance, but there we are, we have to live with such disappointments.
It is possible to look at a larger sample, and there are a number of ways of doing so. If the Minister is saying that the mechanical basis for carrying out a house condition survey would not transplant happily from England to Scotland, let us look for a Scottish basis for a Scottish solution. There is nothing wrong with that. The point is that the Minister, until he took office, was personally committed to that principle. I suspect that privately—I do not want to embarrass him by asking him to rend his clothing and wear sackcloth and ashes—he is still in favour of the principle. It is very sad that he retreated when he found himself at the portals of the Scottish Office.
This is an important issue. I believe that an argument of expediency lies behind the ministerial stance. It is very convenient not to have a house condition survey because it allows Ministers to dispute what may be obvious subjectively, but what is difficult to establish statistically without a survey. It allows Ministers to say that the scale of the crisis is not as it is painted by local authorities and that therefore they do not need to provide the finances that are obviously required.
The refusal to have a house condition survey is a symbol of the Government's indifference to the reality of what is happening in Scotland. It is ultimately irresponsible to hide the facts purely to justify, as a matter of expediency, policies which are based on prejudice and which do not serve the needs of the Scottish people.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in favour of a housing conditions survey. I cannot understand why the Minister is so excited about this matter and is refusing a survey which would be useful to him.

Mr. Ancram: I am not excited.

Mr. MacKenzie: The Minister has given the impression of being excited, because he has been on his feet about three times in the past 15 minutes.


Over the past few years we have had more interference from the Scottish Office in the affairs of local government than I can ever remember. Rate capping and other measures have been offensive to local authorities. If the Secretary of State and his Ministers are going to give guidance to local authorities on housing matters and interfere with them directly or indirectly with the rate support grant and housing support grant, they should have better information at their fingertips than they seem to have at present.
What troubles me is that Ministers tell us from time to time that there is no shortage of houses. That may well be arithmetically correct. I remember listening to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden some years ago. He said that arithmetically one could make an equation of the number of people needing houses and the houses that were still available, and they might work out to be equal, but that in Scotland there was a serious shortage of desirable private and public sector houses. My experience is that there is a considerable shortage of the up-to-date houses.
I became a member of Glasgow corporation in 1952. I hasten to add that I was a brash and youthful town councillor, but that was some years ago. When I went to my surgeries in those days there would be 30 or 40 people waiting to see whether they could get a roof over their heads. At that time a person had to be on Glasgow corporation's housing list for seven years before he or she would be considered for a house.
When I have my surgeries now I am not troubled to the same extent by people who are looking for a house. They are now looking to transfer out of the house that they already have. I am also speaking on behalf of a number of my colleagues because that is the experience that most of us have. People want to get out of houses that are damp or in a poor state of repair. They want to move to one of the higher amenity schemes in Glasgow and other places.
I have the pleasure of sharing the representation of the people of Castlemilk with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). We are constantly approached by constituents who point out the number of houses in the area which are boarded up because they have been destroyed or interfered with by vandals. They are boarded up because the local authority does not have the wherewithal to put the houses in a good and sufficient state of repair.
In Rutherglen—the older part of my constituency—I am approached by people who are worried about simple things such as rusting window frames. I have reports, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, of dampness. Dampness has been a constant complaint and much more should be done by central Government to assist local authorities to deal with the problem.
Last, but not least, local authority tenants complain to me about rewiring. In my constituency, the tenants were recently told that there was insufficient money to rewire their houses. The firemaster's representative had told some of them that their houses were a fire hazard, but the local authority was unable to rectify them because it did not have the wherewithal.
If the Secretary of State is serious about putting local authority houses in a good and proper state of repair and solving the problems of dampness and rewiring, I do not

know how he will make a proper judgment of how to allocate the money if he does not have a survey of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said that he was anxious about the private sector. So are we. I have never understood the present Administration's attitude towards providing assistance for repairs and renovations for private sector houses.
I have had the experience, as have many people, of being a public representative for some time. There is no doubt that middle-aged and elderly people in my constituency know where they want to go if they have a choice of a house in the centre of the town or of moving to a housing scheme on the outskirts of the town. In Rutherglen and Cambuslang people want to live as near to the centre of the town as they possibly can. There are stocks of older houses in what I suppose could be called a near-twilight zone. If money were spent on them, they could have another 20 or 30 years of useful life. People want to live in older houses in the centre of the town when they are middle-aged and elderly. We can see that from the rush there is for housing association houses.
If the Secretary of State and his representatives conducted a survey of some of those older private sector houses he would discover that they could be given a useful life longer than the one at present forecast if a little money were spent on them.
Most of us were brought up on the old proverb:
A stitch in time saves nine
With a little expenditure, we could give private sector houses a much longer life and we could give people what they want. The Secretary of State will never find out what they want unless he conducts a proper survey working with the local authorities, the housing associations and the people who are interested in this matter. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter. He cannot make a proper judgment about the housing position in Scotland, either private or public, unless he has the information at his fingertips. Unless he has the information at his fingertips he cannot make a proper allocation of the resources. I hope that he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I find it incomprehensible that the Minister should refuse to grant the housing conditions survey which has been requested. If there is doubt about the condition of housing, even a sample of 900—small though it is—may help.
One of the things that the Government did which I found unacceptable at the time was the way they discontinued the housing plans which were supposed to be produced on a rolling basis by local authorities. One of the provisions of the housing legislation of the 1970s placed a duty on local authorities to assess the need for housing in their areas, to compile a plan and adjust it as necessary and, from time to time, to send a copy of it to the Scottish Office. No doubt the then Administration found that useful, because on the basis of the information provided by the housing plan they could look at the housing needs in Scotland, see which areas of the country perhaps needed special attention. They could look, in particular, at different housing types and perhaps see, by comparison with housing plans throughout the country, which local authorities were actively responding to the problems. The Scottish Office could also see what difficulties were emerging and could budget accordingly. I fully appreciate


that the housing plan might not have been sufficient to deal with the requirements contained in the new clause, because it seeks a more intensive look at housing conditions in Scotland.
8.30 pm
Briefly, I would like to point a finger at the Government and ask why they are not prepared to have a housing survey in Scotland whereas in other parts of the United Kingdom they are willing to do so.

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer that when I come to that point in my speech. The hon. Gentleman has made a point which I think he must reconsider because he is basing his argument on what he thinks is the absence of housing plans. The housing plan system is still in force and we still receive housing plans.

Mr. Wilson: I remember serving in Committee on the Housing Bill which took away the statutory obligation on housing authorities to provide such plans and to make them available to Governments. I stand to be corrected if some later Housing Bill has changed the picture, but I do not think that it has. The Minister still has to face up to the question of why surveys have been granted by the Government for Northern Ireland, Wales and England but not for Scotland. I do not necessarily take the view that we should follow in the footsteps of England or any other part of the United Kingdom. However, I was struck by the fact that the Minister was using as his main prop the argument that in Scotland, pro rata to the English survey, there would be only some 900 houses contained in the sample. What is the condition which applies to Northern Ireland or Wales, which are both smaller countries than Scotland? We should put that to the Minister.
What have the Government to lose? If the Government maintain that the housing position in Scotland is good and improving, the housing survey will show that. If, as many others suspect, the condition of our houses is deteriorating, the housing survey will point to the need for more expenditure on the part of the Government. I think that that is the nub of the argument. The Government obviously would not wish to make money available in greater quantities towards housing. The leaflet of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says:
What has the Government done?
That is an ominous sounding phrase. It goes on to say:
The Government has drastically reduced the amount Councils are allowed to spend on housing each year.
Because the housing grant has been progressively cut back there are problems for local authorities in dealing with problems of modernisation, re-wiring, condensation, structural repairs and so on.
We all know from our constituency experience that in the last quarter of the financial year there are many more requests from constituents requiring repairs. They are frequently told, when they approach the housing division, that there is not enough money left in the kitty for that financial year. They are told to be patient and wait with their rotting windows and with the draught taking the icy winds of January, February and March into their houses. They are told to be patient and spring will come and perhaps some repairs will then be done to the house.

Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it will not be a housing condition survey which will fix those windows, it will be a joiner?

Mr. Wilson: I agree. That is indubitably the case. However, perhaps the housing condition survey will point out to the Government the need to supply additional money to local authorities with which to employ joiners and provide the window frames and other things which will be required. Joiners have to be paid, the material has to be bought and it is sometimes difficult for local authorities to budget.
A question mark is not just hanging over the public sector because, in the private sector, the drop in improvement grants from the 90 per cent. level has slowed down much of the modernisation work which was being carried out. I think that the Government are remiss there. I know that the increase in the improvement grant was put into effect six months, or perhaps just a little more, before the 1983 election and after the election the tap was turned off. No doubt, if we continue talking about this long enough and approach the 1987 election, or whenever it will be, the tap might be turned on again. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is sitting there hoping that my analysis will prove correct.
Those grants were a good use of public money. One can see the changes which that couple of years of investment brought to the private sector. In the inner cities houses were cleaned externally and the inside of the houses were modernised and brought into better condition. However, we still have far too many slums.
Two things are particularly worrying. First, very few new houses are being built to house some of the people who are still living in the poorer private accommodation. Secondly, because of the lack of money for Local authorities, some of the housing estates are sliding backwards in terms of maintenance and the surrounding environment. That is perhaps one reason why, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) pointed out, many people go to see Members of Parliament and councillors for housing exchanges. They want to transfer up the market if it is possible. They want to move out of a poorer area into a better area. That is not an unnatural thing to want to do. It is not unnatural to want to improve one's environment. However, part of the problem is that there are probably too many schemes where there are difficulties, and too many houses which suffer from condensation.
We already have the equivalent of the housing conditions survey in the valuable work that was done by the Select Committee. The Committee pointed to the need to invest much more money in upgrading insulation and ventilation in many council houses now suffering from condensation. Unfortunately, in spite of that trenchant report, the money has not been made available. I hope that the Government will do something about that. Equally, I hope that they will agree to the housing condition survey because that will be added ammunition for the work that needs to be done.
I was speaking today to a Welsh Member of Parliament who was questioning me about this debate and expressing surprise that we did not have a housing condition survey.

Mr. John Maxton: A new alliance.

Mr. Wilson: Indeed yes. The hon. Gentleman said it was very useful to have exchanges of information on a transnational basis.

Mr. Maxton: Multinational.

Mr. Wilson: Transnational. He said that the Welsh Office used the Welsh housing survey to obtain more money for housing purposes from the Treasury. I have come across a document which shows that the same applies in Northern Ireland.
For those reasons I hope that the Minister will consider holding such a survey. If he has nothing to hide he can go ahead. If he does have something to hide perhaps that is the reason why he refuses such a reasonable request this evening.

Mr. Bill Walker: I hope that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will look carefully at this new clause. I found it fascinating that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) drew attention to the work of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He and his right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) refused to take any part in that Select Committee and left all the hard work to those willing Members of the Labour Party, the alliance and the Conservative party. Yet the hon. Gentleman confidently calls in aid the work of the Select Committee. It is true that it conducted an inquiry into dampness and condensation, and produced a good report. I would have thought that that report, coupled with information from local authorities about the conditions of their properties, would be sufficient to show that there is a need for something to be done. The Select Committee saw some appalling conditions, in which people should never be allowed to live. The report is there for anyone to read.

Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he was one of the signatories of that unanimous report, and that it recommended that there should be a house condition survey?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I did not support that particular aspect of the report. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen looked again at my comments in Select Committee during evidence sessions, they would realise that I did not support that aspect. I do not support such a survey, not because such a survey would not be worth while, but because the evidence is already available. We know of the need for improvements. Local authorities have the evidence. My hon. Friend the Minister has the information and knows what needs to be done. A house condition survey will not tell us anything that we do not already know, and we need not bear its cost. It is more important to use available money sensibly and properly. Local authorities, for different reasons, have not made use of the funds available for dampness and condensation. The tragedy of that is borne by those who must live in the properties and tolerate the conditions.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am pleased to see that there is something that the hon. Gentleman does not already know. I was a member of the Select Committee during the investigation, and I remember clearly the recommendation that there should be a proper house condition survey. The hon. Gentleman was also a member of the Select Committee, and still is—heaven help the Committee. I am not aware that he or any other hon. Member moved a minority report to suggest that there should not be such a survey. Why, then, is he now standing on his head?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that that is not how the Select Committee has conducted it

activities. When we have tried to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it has not helped the Committee. However he may consider my views on different matters, I have tried desperately hard with others to make it a working, meaningful Committee which is doing something worth while for Scotland. We often differ, properly, in our political views, but we should not differ on the importance of the Select Committee's work and the way it presents reports. At times all hon. Members must decide not to make a big issue of one aspect because other aspects of a report are important.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee did not commend a house condition survey but recommended that the Government might give further consideration to it?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is right. I do not have the report before me. I did not want to quote from it because, without it, one is always in danger.

Mr. Maxton: Despite the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Select Committee's work, does he agree that, once a report has been produced and agreed unanimously, whether he agrees with it all or not, it is up to each hon. Member not then to start saying that he disagrees with this bit and that bit, which only undermines the whole report?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some of his hon. Friends have disagreed with various reports and made their views clear, as I have done. That is how these things are.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the temptation. Instead of conducting surveys, I would prefer the Government to persuade local authorities which could and should spend more money to rectify the problems.

Sir Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should follow that, if he can.

Sir Russell Johnston: I could not follow that in quite the same way.
The Minister keeps saying that he is willing to be convinced of the need for a house condition survey. Indeed, he spent a great deal of time saying that in Committee. I shall quote his words, which he will undoubtedly be happy to listen to—perhaps happier than listening to mine. He said:
I said then, I said on Second Reading, and I say again today"—
that was quite a good start—
that I have always been prepared to consider the case for such a survey. But being prepared to consider it and being convinced of its merits are two different things … I have considered it and the Department continues to keep the question under review.
Basically he is putting the onus on us to convince him that it is a proper step to take. However, the onus is also on him, especially at this late stage, to tell us clearly why it is that Scotland is so extraordinary different from England and Northern Ireland. What is it about Scottish housing that is unique and so different that such a survey is of no use to us, while it is useful for others?
Please will the Minister not give us the sampling argument, which has been well dealt with by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? All hon. Members accept that the English sample was so small that


it would be inappropriate for Scotland. It is equally true that the sample in Northern Ireland was of a different size, and there is no reason why the same cannot apply to Scotland.
The Minister has adduced two arguments in opposing the proposition. First he says that it will cost too much. In Committee he stated:
Before committing the taxpayers' scarce resources to such an exercise I would want to be absolutely convinced that any additional or better information that it might provide would justify the costs … The convention's own estimate of the cost is up to £5 million. That would be £5 million which would not be spent on renovating local authority stock or on improvement grants. I was doing a calculation as to what that would mean on the ground. It would mean, for example, that some 1,540 council houses which would otherwise have been modernised would not be modernised." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee 11 February 1986; C. 527–8.]
That is not an entirely insubstantial argument. The Minister argues that it will cost a lot of money, so we must ensure that it is being usefully spent, especially as it could, theoretically be spent on something else.
I question whether if the money is not spent on a housing survey, bingo, it will be spent on maintenance grants and building more houses. It is not unreasonable to question that. Nevertheless, our original argument remains unanswered. Why is it that the funny people in England-indeed, some of them are — and Northern Ireland think that having access to the information justifies the cost of acquiring it? Why is it that voluntary organisations, such as Shelter and others who spend all their lives considering how best to provide housing, are 100 per cent. in favour of a survey? None is opposed to it, although they are surely well aware of the Minister's argument that it will cost £X and that £X will then not be available for something else.

Mr. Maxton: In Northern Ireland they believe that all the information is present and known as a result of the housing conditions survey and they are able to allocate extra resources for housing. That is the position in Northern Ireland.

Sir Russell Johnston: That point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) takes me easily to the Minister's second argument — that the information is already known.
The Minister said in quite a long speech on 11 February:
Local authorities have a duty under the Housing Acts of 1966 and 1974 to consider housing conditions and needs in their areas and carry out surveys of inspection … Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that Glasgow district council is currently engaged on such an exercise.
The Minister substantiated his argument a little later by saying:
Obviously a localised survey is more likely to be organised in such a way as to try to take account of the more localised aspect. I think that there is value in proceeding in that way."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11 February 1986, c. 530.]
That basically is the Minister's argument and he is nodding his head in argument with that. That argument confines itself exclusively to local authority housing and that point has already been made by other hon. Members. If the Minister wants to argue the point, I will certainly give way to him.

Mr. Ancram: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to proceed on a false premise. I understand that the survey

which is being carried out in Glasgow is examining both public and private sector housing stock. The checklists which were returned to us were supposed to do the same.

Sir Russell Johnston: I do not claim to be a great expert in these matters, but the House does have the benefit of the knowledge of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who is sitting with his feet up on the Dispatch Box. If I may quote his pellucid words from the Committee proceedings—
The Minister did not answer at least two or three points"—
that is putting it mildly—
made to him by me and by COSLA. One is that the check list includes only local authority housing. He admitted that that is the major source of information. So 40 per cent. of all housing in Scotland is excluded from his statistics." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11 February 1986; c. 531]
I assume that the hon. Member for Cathcart made that point because he had good information to support it. As the Minister did not go out of his way to contradict it, I assumed that the hon. Member for Cathcart was correct. However, just to cover the final possibility, even if in certain special circumstances Glasgow district council were making particular and special arrangements, is it not normal under the Local Government Acts of 1966 and 1974, to which the Minister referred earlier, to consider just one housing group?
Substantial information may be obtained about local council housing conditions from the surveys laid down by the acts of 1966 and 1974. Presumably, by aggregating the information, one can gain knowledge of the overall position. However, if the hon. Member for Cathcart and I are correct, and the survey does not include housing in the private sector, that makes it less easy for the Government to determine their policy for example on maintenance grants. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, the Government have switched on and switched off their policy of maintenance grants without any clear evidence of a concerted through policy.
In conclusion, I hope that, since the general range of voluntary organisations involved and interested in housing are in favour of such a survey, since the local authorities are in favour, since the Government's policy already operates surveys in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and as the hon. Member the Minister himself supported one when he was no more than an ordinary, humble Back Bencher——

Mr. Gordon Wilson: He was never humble.

Sir Russell Johnston: I submit to that correction—when he was an ordinary Back Bencher. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should now demonstrate some of this open-mindedness which he has been vaunting and pay attention to what is being said. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, if the words on the Order Paper are not quite right then their Lordships in another place should have more time than us to work out something more appropriate.

Mr. Jim Craigen: If the condition of Scotland's housing stock were as good as Ministers keep telling us, I do not see that the Minister should have any difficulty in accepting new clause I. Of course, knowing the Minister as I do, I know that he believes in the advice of Emile Coué—if one says something often enough, one starts to believe it. The trouble is that nobody else believes Scottich Office Ministers when it comes to the bland assurances that we receive about the condition of Scottish housing.


The Government have singled out housing for some of the most severe cuts in public expenditure since they came into office. The Minister may look puzzled, but it frankly puzzles me why housing should have been singled out in this way. No other sector of public activity so intrudes on the environment in which we live and could make such a significant contribution to improving employment in the community while at the same time lifting the living standards of our communities.
Let us be blunt about this: much of Scottish housing, whether in the public or private sectors, looks pretty drab. Some of it is really unsatifactory. With a number of my colleagues today I met the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security about payments for the severe weather conditions. The Minister must accept the interlocking relationships between housing and heating difficulties in Scotland. The report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on dampness brought out that point in a number of its studies and recommendations.
It might be argued that if we could improve the structure and the nature of Scottish housing we could reduce the size of heating bills. At the same time as giving people more comfort in their homes, we could actually create more employment in the community. The Minister may launch into yet another ideological hang-up over a public versus private housing opportunity. The last Labour Government encouraged and achieved a higher number of new-build houses in the private sector than the present Government have since coming into office in 1979. We do not need to take any lessons from the Government when it comes to supporting and encouraging the private housing sector.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman, as a fair man, will recognise that many of the Scottish housing problems to which he has referred, problems that we all recognise as being severe, have been with us for a long time. It is surprising that these problems have suddenly come to the notice of the Labour party.

9 pm

Mr. Craigen: This Government have also been with us for a very long time—too long. I may be exceeded in my fairness only by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I recognise that some of the problems go back to Victorian times but I did not start making speeches on housing only after the Tories came into office in 1979. I was making speeches long before that, and the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) was not here for long then—a previous constituency got shot of him after six months. The electors in another constituency got rid of the Minister (Mr. Ancram) after six months as well.
I can understand why the Scottish Office has been rather resistant to proposals for a survey, because it would quantify the horrendous extent of the problem facing authorities in Scotland. It would also show that the private sector is also vulnerable. I know that a survey was done on inter-war housing in the private sector which showed that that sector will continue to be vulnerable in the foreseeable future. The Government's recent Green Paper on home improvements recognised the contribution that renovation of our old housing stock has made. What is

required of the Minister this evening is an acceptance that that programme will keep abreast of the requirements that face Scottish housing in the foreseeable future.
We have a large Victorian heritage as well, and a number of houses constructed during that time have stood the test of time remarkably well—more so than some of the housing stock that was constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. The renovation programme carried out by both Labour and Conservative Governments has shown that one can give a fresh lease of life to these older properties at rather economic prices. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), with his Glasgow shrewdness, pointed out, people prefer renovated older houses to some of the post-war system built housing. There has been consumer preference for many of the older houses that have been brought up to modern standards.
There are many problems in my area that are perplexing the local authority—for example, the deck access schemes. There are police aspects as well, such as combating the incidence of crime and vandalism, all of which will incur considerable cost. The Minister and I served in Committee on the housing defects legislation. That measure benefited only those people who had taken the Government at their face value and purchased houses which they then found had structural faults that required either remedy or another home, because the problems were beyond repair. The Government may also have to recognise that certain system-built properties are beyond repair, and that it will be necessary for the Government to write off the debt charges rather than leave the housing authorities to face this burden.
Some other facts have emerged from the housing survey. The Minister should recognise what has been recognised by the housing authorities, that there will be a shortage of the necessary skills. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will agree that, when the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities came to lobby Members of Parliament during the time of housing support grant orders, Bailie Jim McLean, the chairman of Glasgow housing committee, said there would be a shortage of electricians and other skilled tradesmen, given certain levels of programming in the modernisation of houses.

Mr. George Foulkes: Shocking.

Mr. Craigen: The loud voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) comes across quite sharply.
That shortage of skilled tradesmen is typical of what is happening in the construction industry. We are wasting a lot of our skilled tradesmen.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. If it amounts to as little as the Minister in his interventions insisted that it did, he does not have much to be afraid of by accepting it. I do not support the new clause simply because I want to be information-rich about the problems of Scottish housing. Most of us who are dealing with constituents all the time look around our areas and are only too familiar with the problem of deteriorating housing stock. I hope that the Minister will bite the bullet by accepting the new clause and that he will recognise that there is a need for Scottish housing to get a bigger slice of the cake. It is the duty of Scottish Office Ministers to


argue with their colleagues responsible for other areas in the United Kingdom the case that Scottish housing deserves a bigger slice.

Mr. William McKelvey: I support new clause 1. I want to put the record straight about the affairs of the Select Committee and the inquiry into damp housing. There were two reports, and the original report was never ratified by the Select Committee because, unfortunately, an election intervened. The original report was much stronger than the one that followed. It was a scathing indictment not only of the Government, but of local authorities of all political colours which for years concealed and masked the problems of their housing stock, because the problem was so huge that it would have become a massive national embarrassment. New members arrived in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and we had to water down the original report in order to get the new members, who were somewhat more extreme in their Right-wing views, to accept what was to be a consensus.

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to give a tendentious description of the deliberations of a Select Committee on a report that has never been published?

Mr. Speaker: If the report has not been published, the hon. Member should not disclose it. I think that what he said was a preamble to his speech.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and I took part in the survey. I think he will agree that we were both disgusted and shocked by what we discovered. In the summary of conclusions and recommendations, at paragraph 84(4), the Committee said:
The Committee is inclined to consider that a comprehensive, centrally funded and organised survey of housing stock, as advocated by a majority of witnesses, would be justified in terms of practical benefit. We do not, however, consider the case conclusively proven".
That is what the Committee reported.

Mr. McKelvey: Of course that was the case. Nothing could have been conclusively proven because some members of the Committee had not heard the evidence. In natural justice, we could not have pushed the original report.
However, the evidence which was gathered and which appeared in the published report showed clearly that the vast majority of those from whom we heard evidence believed that such a survey would give the Government a clearer idea of the problems of public and private housing. That was most important because there had been no survey of private housing, and the survey undertaken by some local authorities provided inconclusive and incomplete evidence.
All the members of the Select Committee were horrified by the conditions in which some people lived, and we saw only a small proportion of bad housing. The extent of dampness was not fully known at the time. Some witnesses said that about £157 million would be needed immediately to redress the problem. So excited were the Government when we produced the evidence that they allowed £1 million or £2 million to stave off the worst publicity. That was a completely inadequate sum to deal with the problem, which still exists. It exists because we

have not had a proper survey. However, authorities have now taken a much more serious attitude, are considering the matter and are telling the truth.
The evidence given to the Committee showed that some authorities had told their tenants who were living in abysmal, damp and unhealthy conditions that it was probably caused by heavy breathing at the top of the stairs and in some of the bedrooms. That may sound funny to some people, but it is not funny for those who live in council or private houses that are riddled and rotten with dampness, which affects not only their health but, more importantly, the health of their young children. We saw young children with serious chest infections caused by the damp penetration and mould.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said that he does not know why the Government fear such a survey, but he knows very well why they fear it. Such a survey would prove beyond doubt the amount of money that must be injected into local government coffers to halt the extension of dampness in the horrible accommodation in which so many people must live, to redress the balance and to ensure that, in the future, we do not build the houses which cause such defects. The cost of curing the defects would be about £250 million, and that is exactly why the Government will not spend the small amount needed for the survey. It would be an indictment of their refusal to spend the money that would give all the people in Scotland who deserve proper and decent homes, whether in the public or private sectors, the opportunity to live in what we would consider decent and respectable housing. That is why the Minister will not accept new clause 1, and say it is disgraceful.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is quite understandable that much of the debate has concentrated on the condition of housing in urban Scotland. Like the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), I was a member of the Select Committee which examined the condition of housing in Scotland and reported on dampness. We saw some truly revolting conditions in some of our urban stock, but I should not like the debate to be concluded without some reference to the condition of housing stock in rural Scotland.
In rural Scotland, we are talking principally about privately owned housing. The House should consider the matter every bit as much as urban housing. The Rural Forum organisation, which is made up of voluntary organisations concerned with rural social problems in Scotland, reported last year on the state of rural housing. It came up with some fairly alarming conclusions. Those of us who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies know that quite a lot of the housing stock there is in a pretty ropy condition.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: I am getting pretty bored with the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
I have taken quite an interest in the condition of agricultural tied housing in Scotland, in which people do not even have security of tenure. Too often, people are compelled to live in such houses, which are in the most appalling condition. They are damp and are effectively prisons. I pay tribute to Rural Forum for examining the


condition of housing in rural Scotland and for making recommendations. The Conservative party has something to be ashamed of in that it has masked housing conditions all over Scotland. It is quite in character that it should resist the idea of preparing a proper house condition survey.
I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and others of my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the new clause, as it is important that we get to know the facts and the extent of the problem in all parts of Scotland. This is as much of a problem, an abuse and a scandal in rural Scotland as in urban Scotland. It is yet another example of the Conservative party betraying its traditional supporters in rural Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate on what started out as a debate on a house condition survey, but the nature of house condition surveys is broader than that.
Some hon. Members know that this issue was raised on Second Reading and was the subject of extensive debate in Committee. I have to tell the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that it is somewhat difficult fo me to get up about three weeks after a lengthy debate and say something very different from what I said in Committee. I thank him for making my speech in advance and hope that he will not mind hearing some of it again.
New clause 1 and amendment No. 14 represent an attempt to quantify more clearly the Opposition's objectives in introducing a statutory requirement for a house condition survey in Scotland. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other organisations and professional bodies have also expressed an interest in such a survey. I have discussed the matter with COSLA's housing committee.
Several assertions have been made. They keep coming back in wide-ranging terms and concern the Government's record of spending on housing in Scotland. On listening to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and others, it would appear that the Government have slashed capital spending on housing in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: Total housing expenditure?

Mr. Ancram: We are talking about the condition of housing. My understanding of the remarks that were made was that the structural condition of housing was due to the Government slashing capital expenditure on housing in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: No.

Mr. Ancram: It is only fair to work on facts, not on the mythology put forward by Opposition Members. Large reductions—some 37 per cent.—were made in gross capital expenditure under the last Labour Government. There have been reductions of some 4 to 5 per cent. in real terms under us.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) who makes these assertions, among others, must allow me to make the opposite case.
The figures in real terms on the HRA and non-HRA blocks show that in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government, capital expenditure amounted to £416 million. In the coming year, 1986–87, under this Government the figure is £411 million in real terms. Although there has been a minor reduction in gross capital expenditure, it is minimal. When compared to the 37 per cent. reduction by the last Labour Government, it gives the lie to allegations that have been made by the hon. Gentleman.
After two years in which we have seen the allocations to the public sector in Scotland going up in total by 43 per cent., I find it hard to take from Opposition Members the allegation that the Government are not concerned about housing problems in Scotland and are not responding to them. At a time of public expenditure constraint, an increase of 43 per cent. is a remarkable achievement and underlines the concern of the Government about housing problems in Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister seen the excellent article by Age Concern, Scotland, a well-respected organisation, which has taken figures from the Government's own Scottish commentary and Government expenditure plans and put them into 1983–84 prices so that they are in real terms? They show that in 1975–76 total capital spending was £1,200 million, and by 1979–80 it was still well over £1 billion — £1,066 million. By 1984–85, after progressive reductions, it was down to £546 million. In other words, the present Government cut it by half, while the previous Government maintained it just above the £1 billion level. Does the Minister challenge those figures, which Age Concern has produced from the Government's own statistics?

Mr. Ancram: I do not want to trespass on the debate on new clause 2. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman will make certain representations on behalf of Age Concern, and I suspect that he will be saying again that the Government have not done enough.
I agree with Age Concern that we need to spend more to deal with the problems in Scotland housing stock. For that reason, in the last two years we have increased the HRA allocations by about 43 per cent. All that I can ask of Opposition Members who are accusing the Government of slashing expenditure in all directions is at least to recognise that. They do nothing for their own case by continually making assertions that capital expenditure is being cut.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) raised the problem of condensation and dampness, and this is something that the Government take seriously. Local authorities' returns in 1985 put the cost of eliminating dampness and condensation at £372 million. They indicated plans to spend £214 million by 1991 on this aspect of their programme. As hon. Members know, we have enhanced the allocations made in the last two years to housing authorities with a supplement, not to deal with the problem of condensation and dampness, but to help local authorities to deal with it. This year that supplement at £20 million represents approximately half of most authorities' average planned annual expenditure


on condensation and dampness. That is firm evidence of the Government responding to the needs of housing in Scotland.

Mr. Craigen: Is the Minister satisfied, from the feedback that he is receiving from those local authorities, that the technical remedies for removing the incidence of dampness and condensation are effective?

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, work on condensation is being done in a number of areas, not least by the Building Research Establishment, to see how best the problem can be cured. Indeed, I think the hon. Gentleman knows of a special project recently started in Glasgow, to which I gave an endorsement, and which I believe will be an interesting example of how the problem can be dealt with.

Mr. McKelvey: The Minister says that the Government have provided almost £20 million in the first year to deal with a problem which we believe will cost about £500 million. Does the Minister know how much it costs the Government to look after those who are ill because they live in damp houses? Would it not have been better for the Government to seize the initiative and say to local authorities that they intend to spend £500 million on attempting to eradicate dampness?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap into which so many hon. Opposition Members fall. A short time ago he gave the figure of £250 million. I have told him that the local authorities say that they want £372 million, so the hon. Gentleman has now increased his figure to £500 million. It is precisely that type of dutch auction that makes the Opposition's case so difficult to sustain.
As the campaign for surveys has progressed, the potential benefits to be gained from it have been somewhat exaggerated. Some of the issues——

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: No, I must get on. I have given way on a number of occasions.

Mr. Clarke: My question relates to the point that the Minister has just made.

Mr. Ancram: When I have developed this point I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Some of the issues that were discussed in Committee went far beyond anything that a national survey would touch upon, far less quantify. More generally, any survey based on methods and sample proportions used in England would tell us nothing that we do not know already. That applies whether one looks at the 1981 sample of 9,000 houses in England, the equivalent of which in Scotland would have been 900, or whether one looks at the 28,000 houses proposed for 1986 in England, which would still give us only 2,800 houses in Scotland. Again, it would give us no information that we do not possess.
To take account of wide variations in housing types and conditions in different areas of Scotland, where there are great differences from area to area, a national survey would need a sample proportion several times larger than any of those that I have mentioned. Even then it would produce only national level results and would provide very little additional information. The large-scale survey proposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

would produce certain assessments, but they would be certain assessments only at district level where they are needed. It would be a quite unprecedented exercise in terms of organisation and execution, to say nothing of the cost.
There must be a balance between cost and the information that one eventually gets. The new schedule suggests that this proposal will seek to go even further. It was for that reason that I pressed the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). I shall now give way to him.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He seems to be a little worried about the conflicting figures that he has received. I should like to help him. Does he accept that he is bound to get conflicting figures and different advice until there is a national house condition survey? That is what we are urging upon him.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman talks about a national house survey. When I was asked this question in 1983, I too thought that a national house survey was a magical way of producing all the information that we needed to know about every house. However, when one looks at what certain sample sizes produce, what the cost of different sample sizes is and what that money could be used for instead, the argument is different. I shall come to that.

Mr. Craigen: When we were debating the housing defects legislation and I made the point that each house would need to be examined, the Under-Secretary of State said that a survey would be sufficient.

Mr. Ancram: It is nostalgic to have the hon. Gentleman shaking his finger at me after the last six months with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). He obviously believes in this proposal When I asked his hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden whether he was looking for a 100 per cent. survey—because he at least knows the costs that we might be talking about—he was realistic enough to understand that that could never happen. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary hill (Mr. Craigen) is suggesting that, he must think very carefully about is implications for housing expenditure in general in Scotland.
A substantial amount of information is already available from the housing plans and check lists compiled by local authorities and from other sources, such as the general house survey and the labour force survey. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was right to say that the information that comes from local authorities provides a sound and reasonable basis on which to proceed.
9.30 pm
I do not know where the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) gets his idea that the housing plans have been discontinued. They are required on a four-yearly cycle for all local authorities except Glasgow, for which they are required annually. I am sorry to have to continue to correct the premises upon which hon. Members have put forward arguments, but I must say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochabar that I have a copy of the check list, which, under item 8, includes general needs, dwellings, and all tenures. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that would include the private sector as well as the public. On another sheet, when asking for returns for future


programmes, the check list refers to the private sector. If the hon. Gentleman was arguing on the premise that the check list did not consider the private sector, he will understand that he was wrong.

Sir Russell Johnston: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had to deal with many interruptions, so I am grateful to him for giving way. Is he saying flatly that all the housing surveys under the 1966 and 1974 legislation include the private sector? If so, why not use local authorities as Government agents to achieve a national house survey?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is using the fact that he has heard the speech before to try to pre-empt me once again. Under the 1969 legislation, local authorities have a duty to identify houses below tolerable standard, which are assumed to be in the private sector. Obviously they must consider the private sector to complete their surveys.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned that I had referred to the Glasgow survey in my speech in Committee. That survey is considering 15,724 cases. The sub-sample is considering 2,700 under the Glasgow district council, 258 Scottish Housing Association and 1,157 private cases. That shows that the survey is considering stock across the board.
In addition, we have had the benefit of various ad hoc surveys into specific problems. In recent years these have included the private sector survey on inter-war stock and the report on the impact on housing improvement and repair grants. Reference has been made to the inquiry into the condition of local authority stock carried out in England last year. One source of information available in Scotland is the annual housing check lists, which are completed and compiled by local authorities and which reflect local authorities, views of their stock.
Glasgow district council has taken the matter seriously. It is currently engaged on a survey for that purpose. By doing such surveys, local authorities improve their knowledge of their stock. They are better placed to assess housing needs in their areas, to draw up better check lists and housing plans and to establish priorities for improvement and repair projects. Local authorities might consider more closely their powers and responsibilities in that area.
The Northern Ireland survey on which the hon. Member for Cathcart is so keen, is undertaken by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is the housing authority for the Province. There is something to be said for housing authorities considering closely what Glasgow is doing.
I have considered the representations made by COSLA and I have listened carefully to the arguments in the debate and previous debates. I remain unconvinced of the cost effectiveness of a national house condition survey in Scotland. I believe that the present practice is more suited to Scottish circumstances and more cost effective, in that resources can be devoted to work on the stock. The convention's estimate of the cost of a 56,000 sample survey—only 2·5 per cent. of the total Scottish housing stock-was up to £5 million. That sum of money could be devoted to the modernisation of 1,500 council houses or, in answer to the right hon. Member for Rutherglen, to the payment of about 1,000 improvement grants. I do not

believe that a survey of only 2·5 per cent. of existing housing stock would give us information that we do not already obtain from various other surveys.
I remain prepared to consider the case for a house condition survey in the light of the prevailing circumstances. The new clause and amendment are not only wrong, but unnecessary. No legislative provision is required to enable a house condition survey to be undertaken at any appropriate time or in any particular way. The terms of the proposal, especially the detailed requirements in the new schedule, are wholly unacceptable and would give rise to significant difficulties and cost in implementation. I ask the hon. Member for Garscadden to consider withdrawing the motion. Failing that, I shall obviously have to ask my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Maxton: I can make a short speech if the Under-Secretary of State is prepared to agree to two things which I thought he was conceding. First, I hope that he will allow each local authority to do as Glasgow has done and carry out a survey of its own housing, and that he will be prepared to finance them with extra money to carry it out. Secondly, I hope he will ensure that each local authority carries out exactly the same survey. There is no point in one local authority carrying out a survey with certain standards and another carrying out a different survey with different standards. If the Under-Secretary of State is prepared even to nod and say that he is prepared to do that, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to withdraw the motion, I shall sit down and we will not have to vote.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of assertions about check lists. He should look at a copy of a check list and see how detailed is the questionnaire that must be filled in.

Mr. Maxton: I accept that point, but that is not what the local authorities say about the check lists. They make a totally different point. Obviously the hon. Gentleman is not going to respond. I am sorry, but my speech will therefore have to be slightly longer.
Last Friday I attended a conference organised by the Planning Exchange, at which the Scottish Office was represented. The conference was about the Green Paper on improvement grants. Every organisation represented, including Shelter and COSLA and the local authorities, the building federation, the surveyors and the environmental officers, said that a house condition survey in Scotland was needed. The Under-Secretary of State is the only person who seems to disagree—I am not sure that his advisers disagree—but even he did not disagree in 1983. He said that he was convinced by what was said by the then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for home affairs and the environment—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).
In a letter to Mr. Breslin—written on Scottish Conservative party paper, not House of Commons notepaper—he stated:
As you will see, he"—
referring to the hon. Member for Eastwood—
does not really feel that it is necessary to await a survey before tackling the problems of dampness in housing. I hope you will find his letter helpful, and I would welcome your comments.
At no point did the hon. Gentleman say that he agreed with the Minister.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): By implication.

Mr. Maxton: That is not by implication. The implication is that the hon. Member for Eastwood believed that there should be a survey. Of course, that would take place after the problems of dampness had been solved.
He is stating only one of the problems. The fact is that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ancram) said that he was in favour of a survey and did not disagree with it. It was only when he attained office that the Minister decided that he did not want it.
COSLA has issued figures, if the Minister will allow me to list them, showing that 332,900 houses need modernising, 118,200 need rewiring, 314,000 suffer from dampness or condensation and 50,000 need major or structural repairs.
The Minister contests these figures—

Mrs. Anna McCurley: rose——

Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Lady will allow me to carry on for a moment further.
The Minister has said that the figures are incorrect. COSLA has said——

Mrs. McCurley: rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Maxton: As far as I am aware, the hon. Lady has only just come into the Chamber.

Mr. Foulkes: She has been at dinner all night.

Mr. Maxton: COSLA obtained those figures and facts from answers [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow arguments across the Chamber.

Mr. Maxton: COSLA obtained those facts from an answer given by the Minister to a question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). That is where COSLA obtained the facts. Where does the Minister obtain his facts? He obtains them from the local authorities. If the facts are wrong, the local authorities are not providing the right information. Every organisation which has provided information, which the Minister says is adequate, has said that what it is asked to provide is inadequate.
The local authorities and COSLA think that the information is inadequate. Why is the Minister the only one who thinks that the information that they provide is adequate? It seems an odd thing.

Mrs. McCurley: rose——

Mr. Henderson: It seems to me that it ill becomes COSLA to highlight these figures, which are to a degree an indictment of the inadequacy of local authorities to look after the housing stock in years gone by, indeed when the Labour Government were in office. Is it not the case that local authorities have always had a duty to look after their housing stock both in the public and in the private sector? They should have done this over the years.

Mr. Maxton: These figures are a searing indictment of the Government's housing policy over the past seven years.

Mrs. McCurley: rose——

Sir Russell Johnston: Give way.

Mr. Maxton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to one point before I give way to another Conservative Member.
Despite what the Minister has said, the Government have halved housing expenditure in Scotland. Despite the fancy terms, the total money the Government spend in Scotland is half what it was in 1979–80. That is why there is such disrepair and dampness in our housing. A large number of people who are unemployed cannot afford to pay their heating bills and that has also worsened the dampness problem. I give way.

Mrs. McCurley: If all the local authorities have the statistics which the hon. Gentleman has given us tonight, what is the need for a housing survey? We know the facts, we know the problems, and we are now attempting to deal with them.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady should have been here earlier.

Mr. Maxton: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the hon. Lady had been in the Chamber for the whole of the debate, she might have heard the arguments put forward for a housing condition survey.
There is a major row between the Minister and COSLA over these figures. If the Minister believes those figures are wrong, the best way to solve the disagreement is to have a housing condition survey. We would then know what the facts are and whether the Minister is right.
The Minister is gravely concerned about the costs. He says that a survey is not necessary and the local authorities can do all this themselves. If that is the case, why has the Secretary of State—or may be it was the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—instructed each local authority to carry out a survey of school buildings? Why is it right for there to be a survey of all school buildings—not just a sample—at the moment, carried out by local authorities with money provided by the Government with a clear commitment that once the information about school buildings has been received the Scottish Education Department will be prepared to consider special programmes?

Mr. Rifkind: It is 100 per cent. though.

Mr. Maxton: Apparently it is 100 per cent. I am not asking that. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to read the new clause. That might be of value to him. Every organisation involved with housing, every expert, every local authority, every surveying organisation, every building organisation seek a house condition survey. Ministers responsible for housing in England believe a house condition survey to be right. The Northern Ireland Minister responsible for housing believes it to be right. What is it about the Secretary of State for Scotland which makes him say that it is unnecessary for Scotland?
The Government are rightly ashamed of their housing policy in Scotland. They know that housing conditions are appalling. They do not want the facts to be known. I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 150.

Division No. 89]
[9.46 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hoyle, Douglas


Alton, David
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
Janner, Hon Greville


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Barnett, Guy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kennedy, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Kirkwood, Archy


Bidwell, Sydney
Leighton, Ronald


Boyes, Roland
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bruce, Malcolm
McKelvey, William


Caborn, Richard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marek, Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Clelland, David Gordon
Meacher, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbett, Robin
Nellist, David


Craigen, J. M.
O'Neill, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pike, Peter


Deakins, Eric
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dewar, Donald
Prescott, John


Dixon, Donald
Randall, Stuart


Dormand, Jack
Richardson, Ms Jo


Douglas, Dick
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Eadie, Alex
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fatchett, Derek
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Strang, Gavin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Wallace, James


Foster, Derek
Wareing, Robert


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Wilson, Gordon


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Home Robertson, John
Mr. John McWilliam.


Howells, Geraint





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Best, Keith
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, John
Dicks, Terry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dunn, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher, Alexander


Brooke, Hon Peter
Galley, Roy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Bruinvels, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)





Hayward, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Henderson, Barry
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hirst, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howard, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Major, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Antony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neale, Gerrard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Normanton, Tom
Watts, John


Norris, Steven
Wheeler, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitfield, John


Osborn, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wood, Timothy


Pollock, Alexander
Woodcock, Michael


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Powley, John



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tellers for the Noes:


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Francis Maude and


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Gerald Malone.

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords], it is


expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the Corporation or fulfilling guarantees given in respect of money borrowed by the Corporation's subsidiaries; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State in or towards repayment of sums issued in fulfilment of such guarantees.—[Mr. Raison.]

CIVIL PROTECTION IN PEACETIME BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Protection in Peacetime Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Waddington.]

CONSUMER SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Michael Howard.]

STANDING ORDERS (ESTIMATES)

Ordered,
That the several Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Public Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

Schedule
Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of estimates):
Line 3, at end, insert 'set down under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 101 (Liaison Committee); and not more than one day so allotted may be taken in the form of two half clays, not being Fridays.'
Line 10, leave out from 'concluded' to end of line 64 and add—
'(3) On any such half day—

(a) proceedings on consideration of estimates or reports of the Liaison Committee relating thereto, standing as first business, shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; or
(b) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of this order, consideration of estimates or reports of the Liaison Committee relating thereto may be set down for consideration at seven o'clock and shall be entered upon at that time:
Provided that on days on which business stands over until seven o'clock under the provisions of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important

matter that should have urgent consideration) or has been set down for that hour under the provisions of Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business) proceedings under this sub-paragraph shall not be entered upon until such business has been disposed of, and may then be proceeded with for three hours, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).
(4) on any day or half day allotted under this order, questions necessary to dispose of proceedings (other than a dilatory motion) on the estimates on which debate has been concluded shall be deferred until the hour prescribed under paragraph (5) of this order.
(5) At ten o'clock on an allotted day or half day, or as soon thereafter as proceedings under the proviso to paragraph (3)(b) of this order have been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put, successively, any questions deferred under paragraph (4) of this order, and any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on all other estimates appointed for consideration on that day.'
Line 64, at end add new Standing Order (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.):
(1) On any day to which the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this order apply Mr. Speaker shall at ten o'clock put the questions on—

(a) any outstanding vote relating to numbers for defence services for the coming financial year;
(b) the total amount outstanding in respect of each financial year to be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes defined in the related votes.

(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 6th February, if any of the following total amounts have been put down for consideration:

(a) votes on account for the coming financial year;
(b) supplementary estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least seven clear days previously.

(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 18th March, if any of the following numbers or total amounts have been put down for consideration:

(a) votes relating to numbers for defence services for the coming financial year;
(b) supplementary estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least seven clear days previously;
(c) excess votes, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts has reported that it sees no objection to the sums necessary being provided by excess vote.

(4) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 5th August, if the total amount of estimates which are still outstanding has been put down for consideration.

(5) At least two days' notice shall be given of the votes which are to be put down for consideration under paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this order.

(6) The provisions of this order shall not apply to any vote of credit or votes for supplementary or additional estimates for war expenditure.

Standing Order No. 101 (Liaison Committee):

Line 12, after 'day', insert 'or half day which may be'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — Kevin Capenhurst

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

10 pm

Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy to have the opportunity to raise on the adjournment the tragic case of my constituent, Kevin Capenhurst, aged 17. Kevin Capenhurst was suffering from terminal cancer while imprisoned in the Glen Parva young offenders' centre. He was released only after I had made a series of representations to the Government. Were it not for the intervention in particular of the Leicester Mercury, which informed me of Kevin's case, Kevin would no doubt have died in prison, as the system does not ensure that the Ministers responsible for prisons and young offenders are informed in good time when inmates are suffering from terminal illness. The result is that Ministers do not take steps to obtain the release of such people.
The system's lack of compassion and its inhumanity applies whether the House and the Government are dealing with a 17-year-old youngster or a much older person. I submit that, where it is known that someone in detention will shortly die, to keep that person away from the dignity and decency of a death in freedom lacks kindness, compassion and common sense.
Kevin Capenhurst was the victim of the kind of life with which society has not learnt to cope. He came from a frequently broken home which lacked the stability enjoyed by most people. Kevin spent much of his childhood and youth in a series of institutions where good people tried to care for him, without great success. He emerged into adolescence as a young criminal who was sentenced for a series of crimes, some of which involved violence. Kevin ended up at Glen Parva convicted of mugging. He was a tough, difficult young offender.
After Kevin had been in Glen Parva for some months he complained that he was ill. His mother told me that she received letters from Kevin in which he complained that his symptons were treated as if he was skiving and that he did not receive prompt attention. In due course, his illness was diagnosed as a rare form of terminal cancer. Instead of being referred at once to the Minister in charge of prisons, his case was not dealt with adequately or at all and only reached the attention of the Minister through me.
I pay tribute, as I have done before, to the speed with which Lord Glenarthur, the Minister then concerned, stepped in. Lord Glenarthur telephoned and gave instructions while on holiday, saw me at short notice and assessed whether it would be safe for this young man to be out of prison. When he was satisfied that it would be safe and that Kevin had somewhere to go, he ensured his release.
Once the Minister took note, he also took steps. My complaint is that there is apparently no efficient system to deal with such cases; there was no system; and nothing so far as I know has been done since Kevin's death to ensure that a system will be created. What are Her Majesty's Government proposing to do to prevent others from dying in prison when they should be released, whatever their age may be? What lessons, if any, have been learnt from the death of this young man?
As a result of Kevin's release, he was able to spend several months in freedom. He was treated in the Leicester royal infirmary with great kindness and care. He went to

Lourdes by ambulance and told me how thrilled he had been to be wheeled around in his bed to the grotto. He said, "I have at least achieved something in my life."
Before he died, Kevin was admitted by the Leicester Organisation for the Relief of Suffering, known locally as LOROS, into the new hospice, which had not existed when Kevin was first diagnosed as terminally ill. I pay my public tribute to the people whose devotion has created this hospice, and to those who work in it. It has made a vast difference to the dignity of the life of Leicester people. I also pay tribute to the nuns who run St. Joseph's hospice in London, who were prepared to take, look after and love Kevin in his last days. There are not enough of such institutions.
Unfortunately, the matter does not end there. I wish to use this opportunity to bring to the Government's attention what happens and what happened in the medical section of Glen Parva. I went to see Kevin on Thursday 8 August last year. I was accompanied by two of my assistants, Martin Hutchings and David Metzgero. I say that because of their corroboration of what occurred. We were to see the forensic psychiatrist who was in attendance and who said that chemotherapy was essential but Kevin was refusing to continue with it and that he had a major obstruction—a primary tumour—which needed removal, but he would not agree to the operation. I asked why, and the doctor said that he thought that it was because, perhaps, he thought that if his condition deteriorated his prospects of release would be greater. I asked whether, in those circumstances the doctor would wish me to speak to the boy about it, and he said, "Yes, that would be a good idea."
I went upstairs, where I was shown into a lounge. Kevin was brought in looking very thin, but bright and uncomplaining. A prison officer in the corridor stared at us through the glass throughout the entire interview. That was not for our protection, because the boy could not have knocked down a nine pin, never mind us, but an act of discourtesy that we very much resented.
I told Kevin about the operation and he asked about it. I convinced him that he should accept the advice that he had been given. He told me of the awful side effects of chemotherapy but denied having refused it. He told me that he had never refused an operation, but, in the circumstances that I have described, he would welcome it if it would extend his life. I then had a similar conversation with his mother outside, explaining the need for the operation.
The House will be shocked as I was to learn, as I did from the doctor to whom I spoke at the Leicester royal infirmary, that at the date when I was requested to speak to the boy and ask him to undergo, by agreement, an operation, he was inoperable, and the prison authorities had been informed that he was inoperable. This is one of the most callous and unkind events that I have come across in my public life. It also did much to remove some of the confidence that this lad ought to have had in his Member of Parliament. I was asked to persuade him to have an operation when he was inoperable, although in any event he said he had been and was prepared to have it.
Eventually, the head of the prison medical service attended a meeting with the Minister and Mr. Hutchings in the Minister's office and various excuses were made, none of which I accept. There is no excuse. There ought


to have been an apology and the Minister should provide one, along with an explanation and the assurance that such things will not be permitted to recur.
I wish that this House did not have to deal with cases like Kevin's, but this place in its glory looks after individuals and their families and hon. Members who care are enabled through Adjournment debates to raise cases that concern individuals. Kevin's case goes much further than his individual problem, because it reflects on the failure of society to cope, and because it throws into sharp relief a system that is wicked and ought to be changed. It is a system in which dying people, however much harm they have caused, are not permitted out of prison when it is safe for them to be out. Kevin was released only after the intervention of his Member of Parliament. I thank again the Leicester Mercury and Mr. Laurie Simpkin for his help in the campaign to have Kevin released.
After three months, Kevin died. I visited him often in the LOROS hospice and it was amazing to see that he almost a skeleton, was capable of living. This boy whose life had been a misery and who had caused unhappiness to many other people never complained during his last three months. He never argued but accepted what he knew was to come and nothing became him more in life than his way of passing from it. I salute the courage with which he faced the end of his life and with which he bore his pain and his tragedy. I hope that his life and his death will be used as an example, and that the Minister and his colleagues will be encouraged, for the sake of all of us who cared about him, to take to heart at least some of the lessons to be learnt from that life and death.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): It is sad that tonight we should be debating the case of a young man who was only 17 when he died last October. Unfortunately, people sometimes die of illness when in prison, and, although there are arrangements for the early release of prisoners or detainees who are terminally ill, there are bound to be cases where people die suddenly before such arrangements are put into effect.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) asks what is being done to prevent others from dying in prison. The answer has to be that no steps can be taken to prevent entirely the possibility of people dying in prison. Before a convicted person can be released early on grounds of illness, the Home Secretary has to recommend to Her Majesty that action be taken through exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy to relieve him of the effects, or part of the effects, of his conviction: and it was under the power that on 21 August 1985 Kevin Capenhurst was released early from his sentence of three and half years' detention, which had been imposed on him as recently as 25 January last year.
The prison standing orders set out the circumstances under which the medical officer of a prison should present the case for consideration for early release; and when he is of the opinion that the illness of a prisoner is likely to result in his death within a brief period, or that he is likely to be bedridden or incapacitated until his earliest date of release, he is required to submit a report to the directorate of prison medical services and to officials in the criminal department of the Home Office. The medical officer should also be of the opinion that the prisoner's illness or

physical condition means that risk of further offending is past, and he must be sure that he is in a fit state to be moved.
In deciding whether to make a recommendation to Her Majesty, the Home Secretary must also take account of such matters as the nature of the offence or offences, the criminal record of the prisoner, the length of the sentence and the time left to serve.
When a prisoner benefits from this exercise of the royal prerogative, he is free from all the consequences of his offence, and free from the control of the prison authorities. But there is no question of terminally ill prisoners being released to fend for themselves. In all cases, every effort is made to ensure that there are proper arrangements for a person's care. We make sure that he has relatives or friends who will be able and willing to take care of him on release, or we ensure that he is discharged to the care of a hospital or other suitable place such as a hostel or hospice.
It is true that Capenhurst was not released until after the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken an interest in the case, but I must make it absolutely plain that the question whether Capenhurst should be granted early release was already under consideration in the last week of July, before the hon. and learned Gentleman came on the scene. Inquiries were in hand to establish what arrangements could be made for Capenhurst's care in the event of his release. They included inquiries as to his home circumstances, but it was always envisaged that he might have to return to Leicester royal infirmary, which is what happened, before he went to the hospice.
Of course, a decision on whether a person should be released may be difficult to make. Even if someone is fatally ill, it may be very difficult for doctors to make a firm prognosis until death is fairly close. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a sweeping statement, which ignored entirely the obvious difficulty, when he said that it lacked common sense to keep someone in prison who was likely to die.
However, that does not mean that, as a matter of policy, people are not released early until they have but a few days or weeks to live. Cases are considered and prisoners released early even where the life expectancy may be many months. Each case is considered on its merits. All the criteria I have listed must be considered together. In different cases, different factors may be of significance. Thus it may be necessary to pay special attention to the nature of the offences and the risk of further offending.
Although cases where a dying prisoner is released early are not frequent, they are not especially rare or unusual. There are about five or six a year. So our practices are well tested and seem to have worked well in the past, with deserving cases not being ignored or passed over. They also seem to have worked properly and been applied sympathetically in the case of Kevin Capenhurst, in that when a firm prognosis as to his life expectancy was given, his release was immediately authorised. Of course, the future looked bleak from the time of the young man's operation, but it was a rare form of cancer—especially rare for such a young man. His life expectancy was clearly extremely difficult to judge. All that Dr. Phipps at the infirmary could say at the end of July was that Capenhurst was unlikely to live for more than two years. Even so, by that time, the case was under consideration with a view to his early release.


I ought to say something about the hon. and learned Member's dealings with the senior medical officer at Glen Parva. There was a misunderstanding between the hospital and the medical officer, who understood a letter from the consultant radiotherapist to mean that further operation was not possible because of difficulty in persuading Kevin Capenhurst to accept treatment. I am sorry that that resulted in the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting to Capenhurst that he should undergo an operation which was not medically possible at that time. I do not believe, however, that that misunderstanding, although unfortunate and distressing, shows a general problem with communication between medical professions in the prison service and the National Health Service. Nor do I think that it shows that, in this case, there was a complete failure of communication. There was a misunderstanding about what was meant in the letter from the hospital.
As to our procedures and practices, they were last reviewed as recently as 1979. Even so, we have taken the opportunity to re-examine them. Although I do not believe that this case has shown up any serious deficiencies, we will make some small modifications to improve and speed up consultation and consideration. For example, we will ensure that Home Office cases which are clearly urgent are marked as such. We will emphasise the need to exercise judgments as quickly and humanely as possible. We are also considering whether advice to the prison authorities may be clarified and improved and whether there might be a need to remind medical officers from time to time of the existence of guidance.
Bearing in mind the number of these cases, prison authorities and their medical officers do not always have frequent experience of them. Their first concern as medical practitioners is the care and treatment of a patient. We will also conduct a review of potential cases by examining a sample, which will include all prisoners who are identified as seriously rather than terminally ill, to confirm that merit-worthy cases for early release are not inadvertently overlooked.
I am confident that our practices are not deficient, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to listen to the hon. and learned Member's views in the light of his experience with this case.

Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for giving way and for what I regard as potentially substantial modifications

in procedure. Do the changes include notification of the Minister about those who are diagnosed as suffering from a terminal illness?
The Minister has said throughout that consideration was given and will be given, but he has not said by whom. When a person is dying while effectively in the protection of the Home Office, the Minister should be informed. The matter should not be left to a prison medical officer or even to the prison medical service. It should go to those who are elected and who are answerable to the House.

Mr. Waddington: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I do not have the day-to-day handling of these cases. This much at least is clear in my mind. There must be rules and instructions as to when the medical officer in a prison recommends that a person be released.
I have summarised the sort of criteria that have to be applied by the prison medical officer. That is the first stage. There have to be rules telling the medical officer when he should refer. When he refers, he is referring the case out of the prison to the Home Office. As to whether a case when referred to the Home Office comes straight on to the Minister's desk, I am not qualified to say. The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise my difficulty. I will check with my noble Friend and ask him to reply by letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not want to find that I have been in error, although I think I know what happens in these cases. I have had the opportunity of looking at the instructions and practices which are carried out. I do not think there is any evidence that they are deficient.
This has been an interesting debate. It has given me the opportunity of pointing out that certain changes have taken place, although they are not of a major sort. It gives me the opportunity to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman not only for having raised the case but also for having taken a close interest in the welfare of this young man and for having gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure that he could go into a hospice when he was moved from a hospital in Leicester.
It is appropriate that I should end my remarks by voicing my thanks to the learned and hon. Gentleman, but I think that I have also, in a friendly and co-operative spirit, rebutted some of the rather exaggerated criticisms that he made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o' clock.